I agree with you on a lot of points, especially the following two:
1. College doesn't guarantee success.
2. Not everyone should go to college.
But here's where we diverge: I believe we'll never get to the point where everyone will "succeed". We all want our kids to succeed, but our definition of success is usually based on things like "have a high-paying job", "be important", "be powerful" or "be famous". This is because we want our kids to be happy and we come up with cookie-cutter solutions for happiness: "have a high-paying job" supplants "not have to have headaches about money", "be important", "be powerful" and "be famous" supplant "be harder to oppress by society or more powerful people".
To me, that seems to be a more fundamental problem than the problem of education and one a lot harder to solve. Disclaimer: Please don't take this as a criticism; on the contrary, when you have two important problems and you can see the solution to the one that's easier, it's a lot better to try to solve it than to sit down and lament the fact that you can't solve the harder one.
That said, I believe that we should define "success" differently for our kids. I believe we should give them a different goal: happiness. Believe it or not, you don't have to achieve greatness to be happy. As long as you can enjoy your work, your family and your life in general, you can be happy, without Leaving Your Footprints In The Sands Of History.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach our kids to strive to achieve as much as they can. It just means that we should try to encourage them to look for their own path to happiness. It shouldn't matter if theirs doesn't happen to pass through fame, power, influence or riches, as long as it leads them to happiness.
There was in fact, too much emphasis on 'success for everyone'. That said, if you look at the rest of the arguments, I think that he begins to form a new definition of success, one that may be a better fit for far more people. In some respects this reminds me of the incredibly bad fad/decision to destroy the high-school votech department(s). We went from being able to give students something useful and more importantly something they wanted to forcing them all into the pre-college mold; with attendant disastrous results. Dropping out at all levels from that point onwards.
While I agree that striving for happiness is a totally acceptable goal in live, I think it's a bit egoistic. I would not teach my children to seek power or riches, but to work to "better themselves and the rest of humanity". If the can't leave their own footprints, they can at least try to help others in doing that.
I want humans to achieve cool things -- build AIs, end disease and death, and settle on other planets. If everybody sought their own happiness I fear that progress would be much slower.
Although your sentiment is laudable, you seem to confuse goals and values. A goal is something to achieve, while values are what you teach your children to shape their struggle to achieve their goals.
Like I said in my comment, I don't mean to imply we shouldn't teach our kids to strive for great achievements. There's nothing to say they can't be happy striving to "better themselves and the rest of humanity"; nor is there anything to say that seeking happiness precludes bettering yourself and others.
Bear in mind that I'm talking about happiness, rather than gratification. I'm not proposing to teach our kids to be hedonists. Just because I'm not content or satisfied all the time, doesn't mean I'm not happy. To quote Frank Herbert's "Children of Dune":
"Tell me, Namri, are you content?"
"No." The words came out flat, spontaneous rejection.
"Then do you blaspheme?"
"Of course not!"
"But you aren't contented. You see, Gurney? Namri proves it to us. Every question, every problem doesn't have a single correct answer."
I'm not sure how to say this without attracting a wave of descent, so I'll simply say that your comment made me smile.
I truely hope you are sucessful in instilling among your children the ideal that the advancement of the human race is more important than advancement of self.
> That said, I believe that we should define "success" differently for our kids.
Interestingly coming from another country to US I had a little bit of a different understanding of "success". It meant something like a general "good luck", or "happiness".
Here (in US) it seems to a code word for "lots of money" and "power over people". One wouldn't refer to someone who decides to live in a remote hut in the woods, fishing and hunting but having 0 income and not managing anyone as "successful".
>One wouldn't refer to someone who decides to live in a remote hut in the woods, fishing and hunting but having 0 income and not managing anyone as "successful".
Would you refer to someone like that as successful?
I think some, unspoken, element of the definition of success is "more successful than others" . This is usually related to accomplishing some difficult task or solving a difficult problem others have failed to solve. There needs to be a relevant reference point for comparison.
Otherwise, we are all incredibly successful compared to our ancestors(and many less lucky people in other parts of the world) at obtaining food and water, having a long lifespan, etc.
> Would you refer to someone like that as successful?
It depends if they define themselves as successful. That is the distinction. Being judged by others as successful vs setting personal goals and begin successful at accomplishing those goals. If those goals are to live in nature, hunt, fish then they are perhaps very successful (in my sense of the word) but certainly not in the traditionally American sense.
I don't think this is uniquely American, more like ambitious or not. Otherwise it would be too easy for everyone to "hack" success by simply setting easily attainable goals.
1. College doesn't guarantee success.
2. Not everyone should go to college.
But here's where we diverge: I believe we'll never get to the point where everyone will "succeed". We all want our kids to succeed, but our definition of success is usually based on things like "have a high-paying job", "be important", "be powerful" or "be famous". This is because we want our kids to be happy and we come up with cookie-cutter solutions for happiness: "have a high-paying job" supplants "not have to have headaches about money", "be important", "be powerful" and "be famous" supplant "be harder to oppress by society or more powerful people".
To me, that seems to be a more fundamental problem than the problem of education and one a lot harder to solve. Disclaimer: Please don't take this as a criticism; on the contrary, when you have two important problems and you can see the solution to the one that's easier, it's a lot better to try to solve it than to sit down and lament the fact that you can't solve the harder one.
That said, I believe that we should define "success" differently for our kids. I believe we should give them a different goal: happiness. Believe it or not, you don't have to achieve greatness to be happy. As long as you can enjoy your work, your family and your life in general, you can be happy, without Leaving Your Footprints In The Sands Of History.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach our kids to strive to achieve as much as they can. It just means that we should try to encourage them to look for their own path to happiness. It shouldn't matter if theirs doesn't happen to pass through fame, power, influence or riches, as long as it leads them to happiness.