 |
|
 |
Large Medium Small |
When I was a newspaperman in eastern Texas, nearly all the people who came to us from “powerful programs” failed. Give me a good “B+” student from a mid-level university any day.
I’ve found the same situation here in my experience at Beijing This Month.
The “best” students we’ve hired know little about the world or how to get along with others outside their disciplines. They don’t think about what they’re doing, just how much money they think they should be making and getting a more prestigious job. They do little to earn such a thing.
I do think extra support needs to be given to exceptionally bright students or they’ll get bored and get in trouble. But does this mean they should be “fast-tracked” simply within their disciplines? Or, should they use their brilliance to widen their educational and life experience?
For most of us (and I consider myself the epitome of average), an “army-style” training is more important. Anyone who has ever been in combat will tell you that you are only as good as your weakest team member; therefore, you noy only have to train your team constantly to succeed, but also to help the weakest member to succeed as well, if possible. If people on any kind of team only concentrate on their individual success, they are likely to be undone by those forgotten or left behind.
The brightest military commanders or the most brilliant scientists and scholars can be undone by the “weak links” in any organization. As C.P. Snow shows us in his Two Cultures, there’s more to life than the technical aspects. People’s thoughts and wishes and abilities to absorb new information and ideas have to be taken into account.
The United States educational system does not recognize this problem; from Li Xing’s column, it seems, neither does the Chinese system. This needs to be fixed.
Readers' comments are welcome. Please send your e-mail to usletters@chinadailyusa.com or to the individual columnists. China Daily US Edition reserves the right to edit all letters. Thank you.
