The Confines of Education
The American Education System: a complex arrangement of systematic schooling that impacts the whole of the United States of America. Reasonably, this seems like a somewhat important structure to the formation of society and the future of the world, but, as it tends to go with integral entities and ideologies for humanity, there are flaws. Although one could touch on every single blemish of how education fails to truly teach, a fault that seems to be reaching it’s detrimental peak in the 21st century is that of accessibility to worthy education. Students are limited in obtaining their goals and dreams through the confines of society’s standard of success and college admissions. The education system determines the future of science, philosophy, technology, etc. and the future of how the world views race, gender, and class. So, as this dilemma reaches a zenith, the 21st century is just the beginning in a timeline of a worldwide impact if the standards of success and the way colleges determine worth are not addressed and altered.
The Definition of Success
The 21st century is embedded in a culture of success, in which success determines one’s worth. The catch is, however, that the American Education System determines what success looks like in theory. Furthermore, the majority of society has accepted this system of education because they were taught the same in their schooling that this is what success means. One, even with an apathetic view, could see how this vicious cycle has extreme limitations for those who do not fit the perfect standard of success. The status quo of success for students simply follows this: above average grades, excelling standardized test scores, and admission into an acceptable university. Many students do not meet these qualifications despite a multitude who struggle in an attempt to do so and consequently they feel they are unsuccessful and not worthy in the eyes of a system that created “misguided curricular policies that prioritized testing over real learning, and social policies that favored austerity over taking care of the most vulnerable members of [...] society” (Chesler). And when students are no longer considered worthy of a successful life there is a drop in motivation to continue to strive for anything more because “a system that rewards only a few fails to animate hope in meaningful societal progress” (Crow).
The implied goal of pushing students to want a higher education through college and through a career is thwarted when, at the beginning stages of education, bright-eyed students are shot down with no hope for a successful life. However, the issue of an unrealistic measure of success does not just lie within high school where students prepare for the ‘real world’, the issue exists in those seeking college admission, in college, and settling into careers. In every single aspect mentioned, success is the determining factor. Students applying to college: colleges look at one’s GPA and SAT or ACT test scores for the majority of their reasoning for accepting or denying admission. Students in college: professors assess their ability to understand course information through their test scores and assignments. Students seeking a career: jobs look for one’s GPA in the school they graduated from and the degree they earned from the same professors who determined their GPA. The whole system is surrounded by that overused ideal of success: one’s grades and scores determine their worth, and it is seen through the entire course of the average student timeline.
“Kick Off for American Education Week at Walter P. Carter Elementary School” by MDGovpics
Zoom
The culmination of the 21st century social dilemma of success in education is a direct result of the integration of Zoom video-conference during the Covid-19 pandemic. In pursuit of trying to limit exposure and spread of the virus, the Zoom platform has become the number 1 option for schools of all grade levels to continue teaching class online. Other than students who were accustomed to taking online courses, this integration did not come smoothly. Blurring the lines between home and school, “approximately 75% of surveyed U.S. teachers reported that they required students turn on their cameras as part of virtual instruction” (Fontichiaro). Homes became the schools, parents became the hall monitors, and the line between one’s bedroom and education was muddled in an overwhelming situation that many had to adapt to quickly. Students soon became aware of a situation that did not benefit their long term learning abilities in the slightest. In the majority of cases, the school/college administration and teachers and professors followed two separate paths in their approach to teaching online. Educators found this new situation to be one in which they did not have to apply their teaching abilities in the same capacity and therefore, in some ways, became apathetic and distant. This intensified the circumstances for students as they were pushed further down a system that is seemingly designed for failure when they most needed concern and compassion. Correspondingly, educators may have continued their level of teaching as of before Covid-19 conditions, but considering the position in which the education system was in, allowed no amount of latitude or flexibility for the students. In addition, “the accumulated stress of adapting to COVID-19 life means far fewer teachers [...] have the wherewithal to question the long-term social [and] emotional” effects of online-learning (Fontichiaro).
When teachers fail to understand or care for the struggles and the mental or physical health of their students, they prove that success is the only goal for the American Education System even when special times like these call for a completely different set of guidelines and judgements. Like most systems, there are always the few who try to improve the standard, but when the consequences of the masses outweigh the progress of the few, one must address the failures. In conclusion, when students are not given the resources from the teachers they need, such as during online learning, students will have even less of an ability to fit the aforementioned standard of success.
The Covid-19 pandemic had a major impact on the economy, jobs, social lives, and many other aspects that affect daily lives, but the most impactful and transformative of these impacts is through education. Students of all ages transitioned from a foundation that they have understood and adjusted to since kindergarten and were abruptly thrown into an online world. Before the pandemic hit, students additionally adjusted and learned to grasp the standard of success in small ways like working through the judgements of teachers and the obstacles of attaining the best grades they were capable of. But when they were forced to go home and not interact with fellow classmates, which helped with being able to deal with their identification of worthiness and maintain a healthy education, students felt the full power of a harsh system that did not allow for creativity and damaged self-worth and confidence. With this full exposure to the American Education System’s standard of success, students will continue to feel these effects even after adjusting back into an in-person lifestyle. It is important, as well, to note that students’ mental health are at an all time low when the boundaries of home and school are blurred. According to Active Minds who surveyed higher education students in April 2020 calculated that “80% of college students report that COVID-19 has negatively impacted their mental health” (Active Minds). The education system from this point on will have to improve significantly in the next decade so as to not feel the long-term effects of an environment of damaged mental health in students.
“Online schools and eye health: Covid19 effects” by IAPB/VISION 2020
Selectivity of Higher Education
Students face the pressure to apply to colleges that have low acceptance rates because that is what is seen as the highest and best education one can get. When it comes to higher education, and specifically those colleges that find pride in their exclusivity of less than 20% acceptance rates, there is an appearance that suggests one’s merit and work ethic is what will truly determine an applicant’s entrance. But it’s all a facade. Selective universities like Harvard that fit the criteria mentioned above are a perfect example of deception. The Harvard Crimson, a student-run and written newspaper, found that getting in is “a lot less hard if your family promises to pay for a new building” (Franklin). In the interest of the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, William Fitzsimmons craftily created a “Dean’s Interest List”. This list consists of “applicants [that] are often related to or of interest to top donors” and conveniently those applicants “benefit from a significantly inflated acceptance rate” (Franklin). What this means for past applicants and future prospective students is that seemingly these universities prefer students that can offer them funds for their buildings and to support their excessive endowment. The key element to understand here is that they prefer one’s money over their actual ability to meet the school’s GPA and test score standards because in this case, for Harvard, “the admission rate for members of the dean’s and director’s lists during this time period clocked in at 42.2 percent, more than nine times the overall acceptance rate” (Franklin). The reinforcement of a dangerous cycle is crucial to point out at this junction; students throughout their education were told that to be successful and to get into the most prestigious colleges they needed to achieve the highest grades and excel on standardized tests, but, as expressed through the Harvard Crimson, the stress students endured to meet these standards is deemed a waste. There is more importance placed in one’s ability to donate than one’s ability to obtain excellent merit. Students placed all maximum effort into reaching the standard just to be turned down because they didn’t have the privilege of giving a university a large sum of money, that being a minimum of $500,000 (Seigel). Universities care more about an applicant’s zip code and socioeconomic status than the work ethic and traits that the applicant has to offer for those universities. When the majority of applicants that apply to universities like Harvard, Yale, Northwestern, etc. are not capable of donating money in addition to their tuition, institutions are “excluding huge proportions of the population, [which] excludes the experience, ideas, intelligence, and ambitions of those millions” (Crow). With the rise of a plethora of these court cases in the 21st century, there is “renewed debate about the advantage the wealthy have in the college admissions process” because the correlation of these generous funds shows that “parents are receiving something in return” and they are “receiving preferential treatment for their children in admission” (Unglesbee). Additional support of the ideal that money is preferred over merit, Stanford holds the title of the 4th largest endowment of all US universities and “if Stanford gives preferential treatment to students who could donate $500,000 or more” then most likely “other schools with smaller endowments will at least do the same” (Seigel). The favorable treatment to applicants with this power extends further than just Ivy League schools, because if these universities of such prestige and high reputation are willing to lower their morals to accept cash on the side, then much smaller and less well known universities will definitely follow in suit of seeking that larger endowment.
YouTube: SNL College Admissions
Beyond Students
The future of the world and humanity are those who are in school right now. This 21st century status quo on the definition of success is incorporated into everyday lives and affects the decisions of every individual who is impacted by the American Education System. The Covid-19 pandemic affects the everyday lives of students and those branching from education. In order to maintain a society where students want to continue to learn, the definition of success and the response to this pandemic, demands change in a way that is more lenient and forgiving to those who do not meet the standard. Students should not base their self-worth on society and the first step to changing the flaws in which so many have depended on is to create awareness and eradicate a structure that does not reward the efforts of struggling students. "Society at large can build the educational scale that it requires only if its institutions of higher education tap every pool of talent” and enable learning “to be available to anyone qualified to access it” (Crow).
Works Cited
Crow, Michael M, and Dabars, William B. “The Emergence of the Fifth Wave in American Higher
Education: America's Future Depends on Embracing the Idea That Excellence and
Access in Higher Education Are Not Incompatible, but Synergistic.(Higher Education).” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 3, 2020, p. 71.
Fontichiaro, Kristin, and Stephens, Wendy Steadman. “Blurring the Boundaries between Home
and School: How Videoconference-Based Schooling Places American Education's
Cultural Values at Risk during COVID-19.” Journal of Children and Media, vol. 15, no. 1,
2021, pp. 96–100.
Franklin, Delano R., and Samuel W. Zwickel. “In Admissions, Harvard Favors Those Who Fund
It, Internal Emails Show: News: The Harvard Crimson.” News | The Harvard Crimson, 18
Oct. 2018, www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/18/day-three-harvard-admissions-trial/.
Unglesbee, Ben. “Do Donations Influence College Admissions?” Higher Ed Dive, 2 Apr. 2019,
www.highereddive.com/news/through-the-back-door-how-much-influence-do-donations-
Seigel, Dora. How Much Do Donations Help College Applications?, 13 June 2018,
blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications.
Chesler, Belle. “Covid-19 Has Made Our Broken School System Worse.” The Nation, 12 May
2020, www.thenation.com/article/society/coronavirus-public-school-doe/.
“COVID-19: Student Survey.” Active Minds, 8 Oct. 2020, www.activeminds.org/studentsurvey/.
Saturday Night Live “Cut for Time: College Admissions”, March 31, 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFia7FhVmuM