I

n one of my classes, we 
had an opportunity to talk 
candidly 
about 
grades. 

One 
student 
humored 
the 

crowd: “The smarter 
you get, the worse 
grades you get!” He 
received 
a 
laugh 

from his audience, 
including me. It was 
a typical “talent” vs. 
“striver” debate.

Initially, I found 

some comfort in my 
classmate’s statement 
— it was a tempting 
way to justify the bad 
grades I have received. However, 
the utterance carried a belittling 
tone 
toward 
the 
“strivers,” 

which I found offensive. If you 
try to get good grades, are you 
not a true intellectual?

Researchers 
at 
Vanderbilt 

University have found that gifted 
people are more likely to hold 
top positions in all professional 
domains. On the other hand, 
Angela Duckworth, a professor 
of psychology at the University 
of Pennsylvania, finds that it is 
perseverance and passion for 
long-term goals — grit — that 
leads us to achievement. “Talent 
doesn’t make you gritty,” she 
corroborates the old adage that 
hard work does pay off.

According to Professor Chia-

Jung 
Tsay 
from 
University 

College 
London, 
however, 

it is human nature to prefer 
“talents,” or “naturals,” over 
“strivers.” His research shows 
that 
employers 
innately 

prefer the potential in those 
who are naturally talented to 
those who have demonstrated 
achievements 
with 
effort. 

The popularity of the college-
dropout-turned-mogul success 
story — think Bill Gates, Steve 
Jobs, etc. — illustrates the 
idolization 
of 
“naturals.” 
A 

friend once told me, “I wish I 
didn’t have to go to college so 
I can get rich quick.” Rather 
than small rewarding steps, 

we, as millennials, have come 
to only acknowledge success by 
glorifying the final product.

At a prestigious university 

like ours, there is 
a 
large 
sense 
of 

pre-professional 
culture created by 
competitive groups of 
students. Seemingly, 
there are three types: 
1) a 4.0 GPA student 
with an obsession 
over perfection, 2) 
a 3.8 GPA student 
working 
on 
an 

honors thesis and 

3) a 3.5 GPA student with an 
appetizing resume. However, 
I was a fourth type: a student 
with a fine GPA but with no 
career title attached to my 
introduction. I did not identify 
myself as “pre-med” or “pre-
law.” Perhaps I felt confined by 
this sense of identification that 
I don’t feel the need to perfect 
my GPA.

Reality 
hit 
me 
when 
I 

met with a professor at the 
University Medical School to 
ask for a research position. 
Her office had a scholarly aura 
with loose papers draped over 
her desk. “You need better 
grades,” she instructed me. “A 
bad grade can haunt you for a 
lifetime.” Her dissatisfaction 
with the 0.1-point difference 
in my GPA to her expectation 
of excellence felt massive. I 
had predicted her response, 
but rejection is always a head-
spinning experience.

Grades were not unimportant 

to me, but I found myself giving 
more importance to things 
outside of school: I chose 
to attend my friend’s mom’s 
funeral instead of preparing 
for an exam. I chose to spend 
my 
study 
nights 
providing 

company for my stressed father. 
And I chose to spend my last 
summer as a travel guide for my 
grandma’s first and last visit 
from Korea instead of getting 

an internship. Was I sacrificing 
my grades for the wrong things?

I held back my tears and 

soldiered 
forward 
with 
my 

integrity. 
After 
an 
hour 
of 

conversation, her push about 
good grades diminished. Instead, 
she 
emphasized 
building 

character and her appreciation 
of my own. “You remind me of 
my best student who now studies 
at Harvard Medical School,” she 
said. “Pursue what makes you 
happy and have fun.” This was an 
important puzzle piece for me.

I began to pick out courses 

that truly interested me, which 
were less lecture-based biological 
science 
courses 
and 
more 

discussion-based 
neuroscience 

and social justice seminars. The 
following semesters, I prioritized 
learning as a student and gave 
my best effort to be a present 
daughter to my parents and an 
exciting friend to others.

As a result, I became smarter, 

with better grades. I realized 
that 
emerging 
interest 
and 

effort produced the best work.

The professor’s message to me 

rings every day like a morning 
alarm. The message was not to 
simply get perfect grades, but to 
use them to show that you are 
responsible and to reflect your 
character as a motivated person.

Considering 
what 
my 

classmate had said in class, I 
find that sometimes we are so 
focused on the end results that 
we undermine the hard and 
grueling effort it takes in the 
process. Barbara Corcoran, a 
real estate mogul, reminds us, 
“I imagined every great thing 
that happened in my life. Then 
I worked like hell to make every 
detail come true.”

Stand on two feet. Focus on the 

person that you want to become 
and the characteristics that you 
want to build. Perhaps as a side 
effect, you can get smarter, too.

“Y

ou’re on Trump’s 
side,” 
a 
tall 

mother, 
hair 

pulled out the back of her 
baseball 
hat, 
told 

her young, bikini-
clad daughter. While 
we all waited in line 
for ice cream at the 
beach, the daughter 
asked 
her 
mother 

about the recent U.S. 
statements on the 
Israeli 
settlements. 

The 
settlements 

had 
become 
the 

focus 
of 
renewed 

public 
scrutiny 
after 
their 

condemnation 
in 
a 
United 

Nations resolution and a speech 
by Secretary of State John Kerry 
— and President-elect Donald 
Trump’s tweeted condemnation 
of those condemnations — in late 
December 2016.

I was impressed that the 

daughter — who looked like she 
was only in middle school — 
wanted to talk about the Israeli 
settlements at the beach. But 
the mother’s response struck 
me as well. Rather than attempt 
to describe the controversial 
and endlessly complex situation 
in Israel to her daughter, the 
mother simply told her which 
side to support. 

But 
in 
many 
ways, 
the 

mother’s 
response 
reflects 

media coverage not only of the 
Israeli settlements issue, but of 
all issues. Instead of describing 
and explaining issues, policies 
and events, the news media 
simply 
relays 
information 

about who is on each side of the 
issue and what they are saying 
about 
it. 
Political 
parties 

function similarly, providing 
ample information on which 
policies, 
ballot 
initiatives 

and non-partisan candidates, 
like judges, party adherents 
should support.

This is reflected in public 

knowledge 
of 
politics 
and 

current 
affairs. 
While 
the 

majority of respondents to 
a Pew survey conducted in 
2012 could correctly identify 
all major policy positions of 
the Republican or Democratic 
parties, 
barely 
half 
could 

determine the correct partisan 
composition of the Senate, 
even when shown a picture 
of the Senate. Only a third of 
respondents knew how many 
Supreme Court justices were 
men and how many were 
women. Roughly a third knew 
who the chief justice of the 
Supreme Court is; whereas in 
1986, about 43 percent did.

Understanding 
who 
is 

making policy is central to 
understanding that policy, but 
those details are often left out 
of media reports. The processes 
that produced those policies and 

how those policies actually work 
gets similarly little attention in 
the popular press.

Yet 
a 
strong 
public 

understanding 
of 

policy is critical to 
sound 
democratic 

governance. 
When 

constituents 
lack 

information 
about 

the economic, social 
and national security 
implications of policy, 
politicians and spin-
doctors are free to 
scapegoat the other 
party and its policies 

and win elections by promising 
policies with little potential to 
achieve their purported goals. 
When 
voters 
expect 
their 

leaders to explain how a policy 
works, rather than just tell 
them to support it, it becomes 
infinitely harder to prop up bad 
policy with partisan rhetoric.

We live in a tell, don’t show 

media landscape when a well-
functioning democratic society 
requires the exact opposite.

This 
trend 
is 
new 
and 

reversible. At the height of the 
Great 
Depression, 
Franklin 

D. Roosevelt pioneered the 
use of radio to explain policy 
developments 
to 
American 

citizens. 
FDR 
used 
radio 

to 
explain 
the 
economics 

of his policies designed to 
prevent banking panics and 
stem the financial crisis. He 
briefed average Americans on 
economic processes taught in 
college classrooms.

To 
be 
sure, 
the 
media 

landscape 
has 
changed 

since the Great Depression. 
Consumers have a broader 
range of news sources of varying 
quality. The vast quantity of 
available information makes it 
increasingly difficult for media 
leaders and political innovators 
to capture and sustain public 
attention. Experts at Harvard 
University predict that, going 
forward, success in media will 
go to the organizations that 
pioneer ways to best capture 
the attention of their audiences.

Explanations 
of 
the 

economics 
and 
political 

processes that undergird policy 
do not lend themselves well to 
the kind of Twitter outrage and 
meme cycle that candidates 
took advantage of in the last 
election. 
But 
that 
doesn’t 

mean 
that 
current 
news 

industry frontrunners can’t 
work to regain public trust 
and establish a new standard 
for quality political reporting 
by 
consistently 
publishing 

articles that explain rather 
than assert.

Some 
publications 
do 

this already. Nate Silver’s 
FiveThirtyEight blog explains 
the 
statistics 
supporting 

politics and sports for a lay 
audience. The Economist and 
the Financial Times tend to 
incorporate 
more 
analysis 

into their articles. However, 
none of these sources inform 
large swaths of the American 
electorate 
or 
command 

large enough lay audiences 
to change the standards for 
reporting writ large. That 
requires editorial changes at 
publications such as The Wall 
Street Journal and The New 
York Times.

It’s tempting to take the 

problems 
with 
American 

news 
organizations 
as 
an 

indictment of their quality 
and relevance in the digital 
age. These organizations face 
pressure to adapt by adopting 
the language, style, tone and 
content of the blogosphere to 
transform serious content into 
clickbait that will stand out on 
Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Others 
condemn 
media 

professionals as biased insiders 
who 
intentionally 
mislead 

their audiences. In a media 
environment 
that 
rewards 

speed — often at the expense 
of analysis and accuracy —
mistakes are all but destined to 
occur and personal biases are 
likely to emerge. This holds true 
for professional reporters and 
the Twitter commentariat alike.

Professional 
journalists 

governed by strict professional 
standards 
have 
proven 

themselves 
more 
adept 
in 

producing 
quality, 
accurate 

content in the face of these 
pressures 
than 
anonymous 

amateur bloggers and those 
working for media organizations 
whose business model revolves 
around creating content that its 
audience will agree with.

Professional journalism has 

the greatest potential to solve 
the problem of tell, don’t show. 
Doing so seems likely to address 
the problem of perceived media 
bias as well — showing readers 
how the facts of a situation 
interact to support a given 
conclusion seems more likely to 
engender neutral storytelling 
than 
reporting 
where 

journalists and experts simply 
tell readers what they ought to 
take away from the story.

Sound good? Then one of the 

best ways to make this happen 
is to embrace organizations 
and reporters that embrace 
this 
model. 
Reading 
and 

supporting 
explanatory 

journalism 
increases 
the 

likelihood that publications 
will expand their use of, and 
other organizations will adopt, 
this kind of storytelling.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Don’t ignore your entitlement

ALEXIS MEGDANOFF | COLUMN

E

very year, almost all the 
top students from my 
high school attend the 

University of Michigan, and I 
am no different. I had 
always been a student 
who excelled at my 
work, so naturally I 
knew I would go to 
this fantastic school 
with the rest of my 
equally 
excelling 

peers. Together we 
would be the best of 
the best. Because of 
this, I thought I would 
handle any challenges 
I may face with ease just as I had 
done previously.

My logic was simple, but 

extremely skewed: I was a top 
student in high school, so of 
course I would be a top student 
here because that is who I was. 
It took me a while to realize how 
wrong this mindset was, and 
when the work started building 
up, I pacified myself by thinking 
everything would work itself out 
just as it had before.

Where did I get this idea? 

Why did I believe I would 
maintain the honors standing I 
had in high school while finding 
leadership positions in student 
organizations, making a whole 
new set of friends and learning 
how to manage life on my own 
simply because I thought this was 
who I am as a person? Where did 
this entitlement come from?

One of the most popular 

criticisms of millennials is our 
sense of entitlement. We think we 
deserve recognition constantly, 
even demand it of employers, 
while never expecting to stay 
in a job position for more than 
a few years. Whether it is true 
from individual to individual or 
not, we all must become aware 
of any amount of entitlement 
we maintain and do our best to 
remove it from our personalities. 

Entitlement only makes it more 
difficult to work together, find 
happiness and reach our goals.

According to Neil Blumenthal, 

co-founder 
and 

co-CEO 
of 
Warby 

Parker, “Entitlement 
is the root of all 
evil 
within 
an 

organization.” 
This 
type 
of 

attitude 
degrades 

collaboration among 
co-workers, as shown 
by one psychological 
study, which found 
an increased sense 

of entitlement leads to increased 
aggression after an individual 
receives criticism. The inability 
to handle feedback from others 
makes it difficult for teams 
to function efficiently in any 
situation.

But the negative effects go 

further than the workplace. The 
truth is entitlement is disastrous 
not 
only 
for 
workplace 

community but also for personal 
happiness — the same study also 
found that higher entitlement is 
more likely to lead to a person’s 
emotional instability.

In a recent interview with 

Tom Bilyeu on the talk show 
Inside Quest, The New York 
Times 
bestselling 
author 

Simon 
Sinek 
discussed 

millennials in the workplace. 
While comparing the journey 
to affecting the world to a 
journey to the summit of a 
mountain, he said, “What this 
young generation needs to 
learn is patience. That some 
things that really, really matter, 
like love or job fulfillment, joy, 
love of life, self-confidence, a 
skill set — any of these things 
— all of these things take time. 
Sometimes you can expedite 
pieces of it, but the overall 
journey is arduous and long 
and difficult, and if you don’t 

ask for help … you will fall off 
the mountain.”

Our entitlement is preventing 

us 
from 
maintaining 
the 

patience needed to take lesser 
opportunities to make it to 
the ultimate goal. When we 
act entitled, we are unable to 
see the slow journey toward 
success, and if we try to forget 
about this timely process, we 
are never going to fulfill our 
dreams. We want change, and 
that is admirable, but change is 
not always sudden. The gradual 
advancement of society takes a 
long time and we need to admit 
that one generation cannot do it 
all before we hit 40.

Entitlement taken at face 

value 
is 
naturally 
viewed 

as 
negative. 
Someone 
who 

believes they deserve a raise, 
a promotion or a bonus simply 
for doing a mediocre job is 
bound to be disliked. Yet, Forbes 
came out with an article this 
past September that claimed 
millennials are punished for 
being anything but entitled. 
There are also many studies 
that 
show 
entitlement 
is 

not 
always 
negative. 
The 

confidence entitlement gives 
to individuals leads many to 
believe it is permissible.

Despite all of this, entitlement 

still damages relationships and 
discourages teamwork. If we 
have one group of people who are 
unable to work together and form 
meaningful relationships, they 
will be incapable of successfully 
working with the rest of society 
for the greater good. So rather 
than accepting our entitlement 
as fact, we need to begin taking 
responsibility for the results of 
our actions and stop ignoring 
the long journey of life ahead 
of us.

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Alexis Megdanoff can be reached at 

amegdano@umich.edu.

Explaining away partisanship

VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN

What is a true intellectual?

GINA CHOE | COLUMN

Gina Choe can be reached at 

ginachoe@umich.edu. 

NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU

Victoria Noble can be reached at 

vjnoble@umich.edu.

VICTORIA 

NOBLE

GINA CHOE

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters should 
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the 
writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

ALEXIS 

MEGDANOFF

