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