Follow-up remarks on ‘academic Darwinism’
When we struggle to keep up, what are we forced to do?
For many students and classmates in my school, ‘accepting the status quo,’ taking a lackluster grade and laziness are never options. The students of my year (class of 2013) undergo immense pressure in the quest for academic achievement and ultimately, college admissions. This phenomenon and its social consequences were discussed last year.
As juniors, many of my classmates are enrolled in several Advanced Placement courses – some of them with little to no regard of their actual academic capabilities. Admittedly, there are a select number of students in these AP courses that demonstrate incompetence – again, some only are a bit lacking, others are committing academic suicide and robbing themselves of sleep, sanity, and socialization. Many students who exhibit clear academic competence and are capable of college level thinking in the biological or physical sciences, mathematics, social science, and English simply lack the motivation or the personal interest to truly demonstrate themselves as the outstanding students they are. Symptoms of academic anemia ensue. Students procrastinate on their assignments, others socialize excessively, and a select few engage in illegitimate activities. Sometimes, it may be difficult to spot out those in this crowd who are sincerely incapable of ‘surviving’ a demanding courseload and the ones who are simply too lazy to do anything about it. In any case, a student’s ‘academic capability’ does not guarantee their ‘academic survivability’ in the high school (or the college-level) environment.
Countless social factors promote what I call ‘academic adaptability,’ a precursor to ‘academic survivability.’ (Adaptation – which can also be called ‘conformism,’ allows survivability, to loosely associate with natural selection.) Since this discussion primarily regards students taking advanced classes, it can be safely assumed, in most cases, that these students are ‘academically segregated’ from the ‘academically average’ group. This form of separation adds pressure to these students, who associate less with those the ‘academically apathetic’ and the incompetent. They are pressured to conform to the general attitude of upward academic mobility, or at the least, to maintain their positions. The minority of students who are ‘academically average’ and find themselves in classes with more ‘intelligent’ students may have a much more difficult time achieving ‘academic adaptability.’
Our collective struggle to maintain academic competence culminates in ‘academic dishonesty’ – cheating. But while schools – teachers and administrators – all condemn the act, students are doomed to perform it. The academically motivated or the academically adapted (Paradigms who set the academic standard and set the curves, these top students are propagators of academic Darwinism. Hence, they are already ‘adapted’ – properly developed [mentally, of course] for the rigors of a specific course.) This forced, artificial means of adaptation serves to achieve the same goal, and is usually used only in desperation. However, individuals who see the conveniences in this ‘artificial adaptation’ will develop it as a habit, to a point where artificial adaptation becomes their only means of keeping up with the pack.
Cheating is personally motivated and personally conducted, but even perpetrators of ‘artificial academic adaptability’ are succumbing to greater social forces. These actions are best described as ‘anomie,’ a sociological concept which explains that individuals who lack the proper means to accomplish a goal presented to them as a social norm will defy these norms to accomplish the goal anyways through what is usually illegitimate behavior (as also defined by social mores). While superficially effective, artificial adaptation – at any extent – has detrimental effects. Students eventually have to expose themselves to the wilderness of academic reality and adapt like anyone else would – study, practice, and sleep more, play less. But we should recall that some students – the ‘academically average’ – can attempt to adapt as much as possible to little positive effect. Everyone’s intelligence is limited, unfortunately, by a threshold of academic capability, preventing a full percentage of students to adapt successfully and rendering many to fall hopelessly behind. This limit, often overlooked by what some criticize as a quality of American culture that every student deserves to, and should, go to college’(with little regards to intelligence), can generate furious debates over the meritocratic aspect of education. Should ‘dumber’ students also be given the opportunity to take AP classes and attend university-level schools? Are they able to handle it? Do they deserve it? How do we even define who is ‘dumb’ and who is ‘smart’ in our society? I would be hard-pressed to address these questions in this post.
We were students yesterday and students today, but we will become college students tomorrow and a part of the workforce the week after. The widespread phenomena of ‘academic Darwinism’ seems confined to high school according to these depictions, but while social roles will change down the road, a ‘race to the top’ will persist in whatever field one chooses to pursue – promoted by nothing other than a capitalist economic system. It’s not to say capitalism is bad; capitalism drives us to achieve and overachieve; capitalism has become the pipe for a fountain of innovation, technology, and novelty. Just understand that if you get more, someone else will settle with less; if you are on top, they will be underneath; if you are stronger, they will be weaker – and we cannot all be ‘smart’ or all be ‘stupid.’
SAT Vocabulary (specialized terms in italics)
1. competence - n. adequacy
2. anemia - n. a lack of power, vigor, or vitality
3. apathetic - adj. showing little emotion; indifferent
4. culminate - v. to reach the highest point or development; to arrive at a final 5. stage
6. perpetrator - n. person who commits an illegal act
7. succumb - v. to yield
8. mores - n. sociology: customs or practices that are representative of the moral values of a social group
9. meritocratic - n. system in which people possessing ability/talent are rewarded and advanced in society
