We have this idea that smart people belong in school. It’s as though we think that somehow school is the very best use of their talents, their ideas, their innovation. We think smartness is rarified, special, different, and so it must be kept in a place that is rarified, special, different.
If the last twenty years have taught us anything, however, it’s the power of smart people outside of school.
Steve Jobs? While I wouldn’t want to sit next to him at a cocktail party, I’m not sure anyone can deny that he’s really fucking smart. Atul Gawande? Really fucking smart. Joan Didion? Really fucking smart. Thich Naht Hahn? Really fucking smart.
All of these people — and countless others — have changed the world by bringing their smartness to bear on questions, contemplations, and innovations outside the classroom, outside the lecture hall, outside the lab, outside the venerated halls of thinkers. And we are better for it.
So why are we holding on to the idea that the place for smart people is school? And why are we telling ourselves that if we’re smart, we must necessarily go for the highest degree possible?
So often, that degree is supposed to reassure us that we’re smart. It’s supposed to be the unassailable proof that we’re smart, so that if we screw something up, if we make a mistake, if we try something and fall flat on our face, we can still point to the degree to prove that we’re really smart, underneath whatever just happened. And we’re mostly convincing ourselves.
What if we were able to sit in ourselves and have confidence in our own smartness, enough to follow our hearts to what we really want to do instead of what we’re expected to do? What if we were able to trust that screwing up while we experiment is, in fact, part of our smartness? What if we would could bring our smartness to bear on whatever it is that makes us passionately, excitedly happy?
For some people, yes, that will be academia. But not everyone. And if you’re in academia or contemplating academia because you’re smart and people think that, therefore, you belong in academia, please, consider what you want and where you fit into the world.
Because we need your smartness. It just may be even smarter to put it to use elsewhere.
Thanks to Jo VanEvery and Sam Ladner for the Twitter conversation that sparked this!
Thank you for that post. I think many people turn to the academy because they are afraid of failure … which is weird because then they feel like failures later on.
Way too many people get reamed for small mistakes. People could stand to go easier on each other, and they should also get better at absorbing shocks. Otherwise, the world will miss out on many good ideas.
I keep wondering how someone as “smart” as me (valedictorian, B.A. with honors, Masters of Education with honors, etc.) can be doing so poorly in life. I’ve never had a job that required a degree. I’ve never had a job that I really loved.
Sometimes I wish I could make going to school my job, since that seems to be the only thing I’m good at. As that’s not possible, I’m working on creating a biz based on educational consulting. I figure if I’m so good at school, I can help others who aren’t.
Great topic!
.-= Christine Myers´s last blog ..Mad Love Monday 25 =-.
I’m really enjoying your blog. Something which I don’t think you touch on, is the lack of short-term feedback in academia. Also, the massive gap between the concept and the work itself. Often, academia is interesting, or even fascinating in theory. But when you get down to it, the work involved is incredibly repetitive and, in the short term, very unrewarding.
I’ve had jobs in academia before, done academic projects in college, studied for exams etc. My thesis for instance was interesting on paper. When I got down to it though, I ended up spending most of my time doing very dull work in a laboratory, often on my own. There’s this assumption, that if work is interesting conceptually then you’ll enjoy the work – not necessarily true.
I’ve worked in the following jobs throughout college and since
– DIY store. Helping customers, stacking shelves, mixing paint, cleaning etc..
– Lab assistant to a PhD student
– Cleaner for student accommodation
– Research on Distribution of Galliformes
– Accounts manager
– Building my own website
In all honesty, the job I’ve enjoyed more than any other out of those was the DIY store. I was helping other people (in a small way), getting immediate & definite feedback on my work i.e. I either helped a customer and did a good job or I didn’t.
I also enjoyed being a Lab assistant. But that was probably partly because I didn’t feel any pressure to do special research. I just did work I was asked to do on a daily basis. Building my own website was enjoyable for a while, because it was a new skill I learned, and I was proud of the finished product. However, I think that sitting at a computer for too long, really can drain a person.
You will be hard-pressed to find a nation anywhere on this planet that under-utilizes its human potential the way America does. Of all our assets, our people are the greatest. Yet, we squander this potential in favor of short-term profits at almost every step. The problem with smartness is that it’s not in charge of forming policies. The businessman is in the one in charge of this world, and he could care less about how smart you are unless you somehow can make him richer than he already is.
@paul: you ought to take a class on managerial accounting and economic price theory. Imagine this scenario:
You are a manager of General Motors, and you have to decide whether or not you want to build your latest model car by using copper or iron. For the sake of simplicity, assume that copper and iron are equally useful for building the car, with neither resulting in a difference in quality. Now, for the sake of understanding, also assume that the copper is both scarcer and more demanded of (more needed by others) than iron, which is more plentiful and less demanded of. In a market with no barriers to trade, copper would be more expensive than iron, so as a manager of General Motors, you would choose to use iron instead of copper to reduce costs (and we are assuming that iron and copper are equally useful for building a car). This is efficient because you are using the resource that is most plentiful and least needed by others. In a command economy, there are no prices, or all prices are set by the government rather than supply and demand, so those prices are meaningless. In such an economy, the choice for the central planner between using copper or iron would simply be a flip of the coin. If copper is used, then it will be even scarcer than it was before.
So before insulting an entire academic subject, why don’t you learn it first?