<p>Some time ago, New York Times writer David Brooks, visited Princeton to interview and chat with some 100 students. He eventually published a much discussed article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Organization Kid" which contained a review of his findings. In the article the auther described Princeton students as the country's future leaders. The opening line in his article states, </p>
<p>"The young men and women of America's future elite work their laptops to the bone, rarely question authority, and happily accept their positions at the top of the heap as part of the natural order of life".</p>
<p>In the article Mr. Brooks found both pros and cons (but mostly pros) in the intense but happy existence of the Princeton undergraduates. I recently stumbled across an article in which Mr. Brooks discussed some of the findings in his article. It offers additional insight into "The Organization Kid":</p>
<p>While I think the trend Brooks describes is real, based on the first article, I believe he overestimates its prevelance. First of all, the 100 students were not a random samplling of Princeton students, but rather, a group picked by faculty members. This means that he was exclusively dealing with those students most adept at ingratiating themselves with faculty - which could be because of particular brilliance, but could also be because of particular skill with people.</p>
<p>Brooks seems to suggest that this highly programmed generation lives and learns mechanically - they have mastered a limited type of intelligence and aptitude, but have been left, perhaps, without the intellectual passion and creativity that denotes true genuis. However, while this is true of some students, it is unfair to give the impression that few top students genuinely love their classes or have a passion for their chosen field. The fact that students are successful and goal-oriented doesn't necessarily mean that they don't also appreciate the experiences that they have while attaining their goals. Similarly, the fact that students question authority less doesn't mean that we are unwilling to, but rather than we don't feel the need to as often as our protest-happy forebears in the 60s. Deference for the parents, teachers, and professors who have helped us get where we are isn't cowardice, it is gratitude, and I don't think that it prevents us from seeing the "big ideas."</p>
<p>ICargirl, I believe you are way off base with your initial statements. First, nowhere is there any indication that the Princeton students selected for the interviews, were any different from their Princeton peers. If anything, throughout the article you got the sense that the writer was talking about the typical Princeton student. In fact, in the article the author states, "Faculty members gave me the names of a few dozen articulate students" but as is indicated in the article above, he met with at least 100 Princeton students. </p>
<p>Second, your comment that the students live and learn mechanically is also off base. The article does not say this. The author is nothing short of amazed at the stellar character and intelligence of the 100 students he met with. In his words, these "students are extraordinarily bright, morally earnest, and incredibly industrious. They like to study and socialize in groups. They create and join organizations with great enthusiasm. They are responsible, safety-conscious, and mature." </p>
<p>Third, the author never implied that the majority of Princeton students, while working very hard, were not enjoying themselves. In fact, the author states, "But nowhere did I find any real unhappiness with this state of affairs; nowhere did I find anybody who seriously considered living any other way. These super-accomplished kids aren't working so hard because they are compelled to."</p>
<p>Dow Jones, Sorry but My understanding of the rules here is that you are not allowed to copy articles in full, but only to quote from them in a limited manner. However, you should be able to find a copy of the article by using google. It will be worth your effort. If I find a link I will post it. Good Luck.</p>
<p>Too bad, too bad; a quote goes well, "Question everything, or shut up and be a victim of authorities." Our future leaders should be those who are innovative and unconventional, instead of obedient and traditional.</p>
<p>Haha, altovoce, I think you're taking the wrong things away from this article. Icargirl's analysis was far more accurate than your own, which I guess kind of illustrates the main point of the article...</p>
<p>this article reminds me so much of heart of darkness...i feel like our generation of overachievers, myself included, are like conrad's flabby pretending devils.</p>
<p>altovoce-he is NOT talking about the pros of this new society, he is discussing its weaknesses. it is fascinating that brooks, a conservative, wrote this article. this shows how the right, like normal, is in the past--but in this case, the past is the rebellious era of the 20th century. i think he makes very legitimate points, and i thank you for introducing me to this article.</p>
<p>I don't know. I meet a lot of very idealistic, creative and caring students at Princeton who are recognizing that if they want to create change in the world, they will need to develop competence and a power base. Many of us in the Democratic party wish this idea had come along sooner. ;)</p>
<p>These are very different eras. Much of the idealism of the 1960s was driven by the interaction of the draft and the Vietnam War. If you were a young man, you had to choose whether to enlist, risk being drafted, or seek to evade or avoid the draft. Much of the protest on campuses was because students didnt want to go to fight in Vietnam or to have a friend or loved one sent there. When the government wants to send you to fight in a war you think is immoral, it makes you think about other things about society that you think are immoral and need change. With the all volunteer army and the wars lower level of intensity (monthly causalities are less than a 1/10 of what they were at the height of the Vietnam War), the Iraq War does not cast nearly as large a footprint on the minds of students. Most students have no connection with the military and dont personally know anyone who is in the military. You dont need all your fingers to count the number of Princeton graduates who will go into the military each year, and there may not be a single Iraqi War veteran who is an undergraduate at Princeton. So most students manifest their idealism in other ways than outright political protest. However, Id bet that if students were being drafted to go to Iraq, David Brooks would find a Princeton campus that would give him flashbacks to the 60s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rhapsody, do you really want an "unconventional" person with their finger on "the button".</p>
<p>No thanks, I'll take the "extraordinarily bright, morally earnest, and incredibly industrious" person any day. I know I'll sleep better!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Innovation is a must for social progress. Our leader shouldn't just be a clone of his/her precedents, but dares to question everything. Sticking to convention will only stagnate this world. </p>
<p>I'd rather be lead by a weirdo who has a mind of his/her own than a puppet of traditions and of outdated ideas who is, albeit, "extraordinarily bright, morally earnest, and incredibly industrious".</p>
<p>This is silly. You need a balance. The world needs a group of earnest, hard-working, bright people. It also needs some intelligent people to shake things up here and there.</p>
<p>The future needs a new model clearly the old one didnt work then doesnt work now and wont work in the future. the future belongs to innovative designers- those who think outside the box. send the alumni back to woodstock to survey exactly what they accomplished while they were stoned sensitive and noble. maybe MIT is the place to be for the brave.</p>