Junk Thought, Part 1: Why isn't being smart cool?

Recently I heard an interview with Susan Jacoby, the author of The Age of American Unreason. I haven't read the book, but the interview was interesting. As I understand it, Jacoby is concerned that most Americans not only avoid much serious thought themselves, but actively mistrust 'intellectuals' (people who are highly educated and do lots of thinking) and 'rationalists' (people who think, and seek evidence and proof of ideas). She is concerned (well, OK, this is my interpretation) that our culture and education system are producing citizens who may not hesitate to exercise their right to free speech, but generally fail to engage in reasonable thought beforehand.

I believe it was back in the campaign before Reagan was elected President that I first noticed a politician scoffing at highly educated people. It annoyed me then, and it continues to annoy me when I hear it today. It reminds me of the 50's when 'intellectual' was equated with 'pinko un-American commie'. I will grant that there WERE some vocal intellectual Communists around, but that doesn't mean the majority of the educated citizenry were in cahoots with them. At least one of the Presidents Bush echoed this anti-intellectual sentiment on the campaign trail, and political commentators seemed to feel that President Clinton's stint as a Rhodes scholar was a political liability.

I have been teaching, mostly in the public school system, since 1982. One of the first things I realized when I started teaching elementary school was that, to kids, it was not cool to be smart. It was especially not cool to be a smart boy, but by about sixth grade, the social pressure was also building on girls. It was cool to be athletic, nice-looking, funny, well-dressed or popular - and a mediocre student. Nobody wanted to be really stupid, or to fail, but only a few girls and even fewer boys wanted to be at the top of their class. I might not have noticed this so quickly except that in my second year of teaching fifth grade, I was fortunate to have a remarkable class. It was a large class - over thirty - but fully a third of the students would have qualified for a gifted program if our district had offered such a thing, and only one of the students was functioning much below grade level. There were enough bright, motivated students together that they created a culture where it WAS cool to be smart, and the whole class benefited. Halfway through the year, the brightest boy in the class moved away, and a week later, a boy moved in who was quite social but completely disinterested in schoolwork. For the rest of the year, the atmosphere in the class was not as friendly to learning. It was still an excellent group, and some of them had made huge gains in achievement by the end of the year - but the boys, especially, pulled back.

At parent-teacher conferences every year I taught elementary or middle school, I periodically had a conversation that went like this:
Me: "Jared is doing pretty well in most subjects, but he seems to have a hard time with ______ (math or reading or English)."
Parent, giving child a fond look: "That's OK, Jared. I was never good at ________, either."
Now, I'm sure the parents meant no harm. They were sympathizing with their children, or possibly trying to salve the child's self-esteem (someday I'll do a blog about self-esteem). However, the message the child got was something like this: It's OK to be mediocre at math (or reading, or English). Also, you probably can't do any better because you're like your parent, who couldn't do it. Therefore, you don't need to work harder at it. This, I submit, is what SHOULD be regarded as an un-American attitude!

It is a cliche these days to observe that Americans hold sports and entertainment celebrities in higher esteem than, well, anybody else. Our schools mirror these attitudes. How many pep rallies did your local high school have for sports teams? how many pep rallies did they have for the math team, the debate team, or students about to take their SAT tests? How many assemblies did they have to see the school play, drill team, or to hear the choir or band perform? How many for poetry readings, science demonstrations, or a discussion of a historical controversy? How many hours outside of regular school time does a coach or parent help groups of students with football or soccer, or rehearsals for the musical? How many hours outside of school does a coach or parent help groups of students with math? One more example: What incites more community involvement - a great (or terrible) basketball coach, or a great (or terrible) English teacher? [Note: I'm not opposed to sports, or music, or drama. I'm just pointing out the common attitude.] Achievement in sports or, to a lesser degree, music is regarded as a matter of team and community pride. Achievement in math or English is regarded as individual and private - and if you are a high achiever, you are encouraged to be modest and keep it private.

Why is this important? Because until we, as a culture, value education, intelligence, and serious thought more than athletic prowess or entertainment, any education funding, better teaching, or reform are going to be fighting an uphill battle, and wondering why it's so tough. Because if we want to be world leaders in something besides pop music, we need to be raising smart kids who are eager to be the best in math, or science, or languages. Because if we want to be a democracy, we need citizens who think hard about the world's problems.