Communication seems to have broken down. The interactions we have with those who “disagree” with certain points of view can come to feel as though they are fruitless. In a democratic society where large-scale decisions are made by the people’s representatives, it is important that debates and exchanges with those who possess different perspectives result in understanding instead of a more entrenched and bitter partisanship.
This article is written in response to another Odyssey article written by Alyssa Slicko. I would like to start off by stating that I do not share her perspective on the right to education. I will be breaking down some of the basic assumptions that underlie her argument against education as a basic right and offering an alternative viewpoint.
Before starting, I would like to point out that the following is intended as a critique of a particular idea and not as a criticism of an individual. Slandering an individual for possessing a certain set of beliefs is ineffective in changing perspectives, as well as neglectful of the fact that the ideas we hold to be “ours” are often reflections of circumstance (i.e., how we were raised, particularly impactful people in our lives, socio-cultural environment, etc.). One potential environmental factor that could influence how the author communicated their ideas is the actual architecture of The Odyssey Online, the medium through which they published their thoughts on the right to education. The Odyssey rewards authors based on the number of views, which is unanimously agreed upon as an inaccurate method of judging value. Additionally, this method of distributing reward tends to favor or even encourage sensationalism.
It is within this context that Slicko’s argument must be contextualized. The basic premise behind her position is that:
The potential of going into debt should encourage students to outperform each other for competitive scholarships. “It is stressful to know that if I fail a test and don't meet my GPA requirements, that I will ultimately lose my scholarships. However, that stress motivates me to work hard. I'm constantly studying so that I can achieve my career goals. I'm working hard for what I want.”
Extracurricular employment benefits students. “How can you be expected to work hard in your career if you can't work hard for everything leading up to that career?”
Additionally, for many students, academic performance alone is not enough to secure a position in one’s chosen field after graduation. Graduates face an ever more competitive post-graduation employment market. Participation, especially in leadership-roles, can help students stand out as a candidate. However, these types of positions can limit the number of hours students can dedicate to studying leaving many to choose between high GPA’s or community involvement.
The research surrounding the effect of employment on GPA is more complex than Slicko alludes to. Generally speaking, students working over 20 hours scored lower GPA’s than students who worked less than 20. Location, position type, and many other factors were also important considerations when discussing the impact of employment on grades.
Additionally, scheduling work, study time, classes, and community involvement (among many other things) can be a complicated task. Students often are forced to choose between employment and having enough money to sustain themselves, and being involved in on-campus and community activities and organizations. Even after cutting out some beneficial experiences, students may also need to further cut out social engagements, family activities, and other things needed to psychologically sustain themselves. In the words of Aaron Swartz, “Time is not fungible.”
The topic of the right to education is much more complex and contains much more depth than can be broached by one or two articles. Differentiated academic ability, the validity of GPA as a measurement of academic success, socio-economic status, and more are all important and influential factors to consider when discussing the right to education.
