Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
I
came to the University of
Michigan understanding
what
it
means
“to
grind.”
Stuyvesant
High
School,
my
high school in New
York
City,
was
a
notorious
pressure
cooker where, per
The
New
York
Times, “The social
currency is academic
achievement.”
Students
would
brag about pulling
all-nighters,
there
was
constant
analysis
of
everyone’s GPA and a joke
among
teachers
was
that
the Stuyvesant cheer was,
“What’d
ya
get?”
after
receiving exam results. In a
poll by the school newspaper,
over 80 percent of students
reported
having
cheated
at
some
point.
However,
students were explicit about
their motivations for working.
Students
worked
hard
so they could get the best
grades, which would take
them to the best colleges and
subsequently to the best jobs.
Though the culture induced by
this mentality was toxic and
dehumanizing, it was a logical
mindset — especially for the
43
percent
of
Stuyvesant
High
School
students
classified as “economically
disadvantaged.”
I was excited to leave the
rat race. When I started at
the University, I was amazed
by how little my friends and I
discussed grades — even when
we were in the same class. I
still do not know any of my
friends’ GPAs. But that relief
was short-lived. After almost
two years here, I have noticed
a closely related — but less
logical — work ethic among
many of my peers and myself
similar to that which plagued
my high school.
In
this
work
ethic,
instead of using academic
achievement as social capital,
we view effort as a value
measure in and of itself. On
the surface, it is good that
we are placing value in the
process, not the results; how
we use our time says a lot
about who we are. However,
working just to show our
peers and ourselves that we
are working is emotionally
self-serving — not logical.
It is worthwhile to think
about why we are beholden to
this illogical work ethic. I can
think of a couple of reasons.
The first is the increasing
ubiquity of a college degree.
According
to
government
census
data,
for
the first time, more
than one-third of
adult
Americans
have a bachelor’s
degree.
While
going to college is
more
important
than ever, going to
simply go means
less than it used
to. Another factor is that
college attendance is largely
determined by family wealth.
For wealthier students, there
was never any doubt they
would
attend
college,
so
they need ways to show they
deserve this experience.
The second factor behind
this work ethic is that, once in
college, graduation is not seen
as an achievement for most
students. In the 2015-2016
academic year, the University
had a 91 percent six-year
graduation
rate.
When
almost everyone graduates,
whether or not a student
graduates does not say much
about how hard they worked
in college, because it is a
uniform goal that most attain.
Consequently,
graduation
does little to differentiate
students within college.
Third, even within college,
particularly in LSA, grades
seem to mean less than we
think they do. Elite law and
medical schools require strong
college grades but, for most
such schools, standardized
test
scores
are
more
important.
For
individuals
hoping to find work right out
of college, finding data on
how employers value college
grades
was
difficult,
but
my understanding from my
and my peers’ experiences
is that employers care more
about experience and skills.
Furthermore,
a
literature
review found that college
grades aren’t a good predictor
of college success. None of
this takes into account how
grade inflation is hurting
the legitimacy of grades as
a good measurement. The
consequence is that within
elite colleges and universities,
students need new ways of
differentiating
themselves
and attaining social currency
because traditional academic
metrics are not as valuable as
they used to be. Without these
more objective measures of
success, we have turned to hard
work as an end, not a mean.
The
last
key
reason
we
have
this
mindset
is
guilt. We feel the guilt and
privilege of going to an elite
college
because
we
know
that such a small proportion
of Americans get to have
this remarkable experience.
The college experience is
expensive and open-ended,
leading us to feel as though
we need to maximize every
second of our time here by
filling it up with activities,
meetings or classes.
We can see this mindset
all
around
us.
We
burn
ourselves out by overloading
our schedules, we add double
majors and minors so we can
mention them in an icebreaker,
and we brag to our friends
about how late we were up
at the UGLi. Working hard is
important and essential, but
working hard for the sake of
working hard is toxic.
Our
competitive,
hard-
working culture is difficult
to fix because the factors that
contribute to it are so positive.
We don’t want to go back to a
time when college was a club
of wealthy white boys where
admittance alone determines
outcomes, because we know
how much influence wealth
has over college acceptances.
We also don’t want to make
it more difficult to graduate,
because the students that
graduate deserve to do so. And
if grades had more meaning, it
would be as if we were back
in high school. But we need
to examine the motivation
behind our hard work, and
ensure that it does not become
our social currency, because
hard work and busyness are
not everything.
Solomon Medintz can be reached at
smedintz@umich.edu.
SAM KOLE | OP-ED
Vote for Boring in 2020
W
ith
Democratic
primary
hopefuls
not
so
quietly
taking trips to Iowa and
New Hampshire, the field
is wide open to challenge
President Donald Trump in
his re-election bid to “Keep
America Great.” Let us turn
to our nation’s past elections
and leaders for insight into
our
upcoming
historical
presidential election.
The
recent
passing
of
former President George H.W.
Bush has provided us the
opportunity to reflect on his
legacy as the most effective
one-term president in modern
history. His administration’s
efficacy
can
be
largely
attributed to his years of hard
work and experience. Having
taken office as, arguably, the
most qualified person to ever
become commander-in-chief,
Bush came to the Oval Office
with more than 20 years of
experience
as
the
former
vice president, director of
the CIA, Republican National
Committee chairman, United
Nations
ambassador,
U.S.
representative
from
Texas
and World War II hero. By all
accounts, Bush was certainly
a “D.C. insider” and this
was a good thing. In 2020,
we need an insider with the
institutional
knowledge
necessary to effectively lead
the
government.
Someone
who has quietly been doing the
work of our nation for decades.
Not
another
billionaire
outsider or ambitious career
politician eager to make a
name for themselves.
We
must
ask:
What
regulatory,
executive
and
discretionary
actions
does
the next president plan to
issue in order to begin to
heal our nation, reeling from
arguably the most turbulent
administration
since
1974?
Right now, our country needs
a
competent,
humble
and
level-headed leader to govern.
We ought to look to our
history and take stock of how
we as a nation navigated rocky
waters in the past. Michigan
native
President
Gerald
Ford rose to the occasion,
becoming president with no
ambition for power but out of
service to the nation. Ford’s
personal humility and years
of
experience
representing
Michigan in the House of
Representatives are exactly
what the country needed on
the heels of President Richard
Nixon’s resignation disaster.
By all accounts, Ford could be
considered a boring politician.
As
the
first
non-elected
president, Ford took office
at a time when confidence in
the government was at an all-
time low, but still managed to
steady the ship and keep the
trains running.
The Democrats ought to
choose a candidate who is
experienced, who has a vision
and who some may even
consider a little “boring,” as
were Truman, Ford and Bush,
all of whom were seasoned D.C.
operators and well qualified
for the job of president.
Sen.
Kamala
Harris,
D-Calif., has taken center stage
in the gaggle of progressives
gnawing at the bit for the
opportunity
to
challenge
Trump, who currently has
the lowest overall approval
rating
compared
to
other
presidents since he’s taken
office.
However,
Harris’
recent admission that she
hopes to rid the American
health care system of private
insurance
companies
is
demonstrative of the out-of-
touch sensationalist policies
of the progressive arm of the
Democratic party, though she
retracted the statement.
Democrats rebranded in
2018 in a desperate attempt
to differentiate themselves
from
former
Secretary
of
State
Hillary
Clinton
and
the corporate arm of the
Democratic Party. Candidates
such as Harris, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, D-N.J. and Sen. Cory
Booker, D-Mass., have used
Senate hearings as a launching
pad
for
their
campaigns
instead
of
working
with
their Republican colleagues
on doing the business of the
American people.
2020 candidate Sen. Bernie
Sanders,
I-Vt.,
has
spent
the past two years taking
aim at Trump and his more
eccentric statements instead
of proposing legislation or
using his Senate seat for more
than a springboard to run
for president again. Sanders
has shelved his enthusiasm
and bully pulpit for the past
two years with the intention
of
preserving
himself
for
another grueling presidential
campaign.
What are the Democratic
Party’s policy initiatives for
2020? What actions will they
take to unravel the Trump
administration’s conservative
directives
and
policies?
Which Democratic candidate
will
bring
the
humility
of
Ford,
the
technocratic
expertise of Bush and the
steady handedness of former
President Barack Obama?
As
students,
we
ought
to look to the soft-spoken,
“boring” candidate who can
humble themselves within the
most powerful office in the
world to enact change. Not
“change that we can believe
in,” but rather “change we
can
achieve.”
With
news
outlets already covering the
still far-off 2020 presidential
election, let us be intentional
in our vote. We must look for
leaders who have meaningful
track records and impressive
resumes. And be open to
candidates
who,
yes,
may
appear a little bit boring.
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN
Why we glorify “the grind”
H
ouse
Bill
4205,
signed
during
the
lame duck session
by former Gov. Rick Snyder
on Dec. 28, 2018, prohibits
state agencies from enacting
or adopting policy that is
stricter
than
the
federal
standards. This will impact
environmental
regulations
across the state of Michigan
insofar that it will put an end
to intelligent policy that fits
Michigan’s unique situation
as a state benefitting hugely
from industries relying on a
clean, well-kept environment.
The
economic
benefits
from stricter than federal
environmental
regulations
that
ensure
our
state
remains in pristine condition
are
plentiful:
Tourism
in
Michigan
generated
$22
billion in 2014 in revenue
for
the
state
and
local
businesses, forestry products
and
recreation
in
forests
generated $12 billion in 2012
and
hunting
and
fishing
generated
more
than
$2
billion in 2018. All these
sectors
of
the
Michigan
economy require policy that
is mindful of the common
denominator
all
of
these
money-makers
share:
a
pristine environment. This
is
not
including
indirect
beneficiaries of beauty like golf
courses, of which Michigan
has more than most states.
HB 4205 takes control of
reasonable
environmental
management
and
policy
and
takes
regulation
out
of the hands of Michigan
agencies at a time when
outdoor
recreation
is
the
fastest
growing
sector
of
Midwestern
economies.
Andy Northrop, a Michigan
State University Extension
faculty member who works
in tourism, leadership and
civic
engagement,
while
writing a commentary over
this report, notes that “. .
.tourism activity in Michigan
generates
approximately
$2.4 billion in state and
local taxes. In the absence of
these taxes, each household
in Michigan would have to
pay $640 to fill the gap.”
This sum will only increase
if Michigan agencies can’t
enact the policies necessary
to
safeguard
against
environmental
degradation,
the likes of which will have
a negative impact on tourism
and thus tourism revenue,
and, ultimately, increase that
$640.
Now you might be thinking,
“It’s not like I have to pay
that” or “I don’t see tourism
filling my pockets with cash,”
but I implore you to consider
that while you might not
benefit directly in the form
of some sort of payout, your
city, county and ultimately
state do benefit, and when
they benefit from increased
revenue, they are less inclined
to raise taxes, which does
directly benefit you. But this
is all related to Michigan’s
ability to control and manage
its own land, our own land,
and it is for these reasons we
need to repeal and replace
HB 4205 with something
that reflects our heritage and
economic characteristics as a
state. The federal government
is
not
Michigan;
we,
as
citizens
of
this
beautiful
state,
know
better
than
those in Washington what
environmental
policies
we
need to safeguard and promote
both our environment and
our economy. Thus, let our
direction
not
be
stricter
rather
than
federal,
but
simply better.
CODY LADD | OP-ED
Repeal and replace House Bill 4205
Cody Ladd is a senior studying
ecology, evolution, and biodiversity
and can be reached at cody.t.ladd@
gmail.com.
Sam Kole is a student in LSA and can
be reached at samkole@umich.edu.
We need to repeal
and replace
HB 4205 with
something that
reflects our
heritage
It is worthwhile to
think about why
we are beholden
to this illogical
work ethic
SOFIA ZERTUCHE | CONTACT SOFIA AT SOFZER@UMICH.EDU
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
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.
In 2020, we need
an insider with
the institutional
knowledge necessary
to effectively lead the
government
SOLOMON
MEDINTZ