Reflections on a Perfect Student

After this first semester of college, I find myself thinking the definition of a successful student has not changed. I still believe success can not simply be defined by one person. Gladwell still seems to have a cut-throat approach. Being introduced to another author in FYS class has shown me that not all authors who write about success and what it means is as shallow as Mr. Gladwell. Dweck seems to cheerfully define success as having a growth-mindset, and being able to overcome struggles with a positive attitude towards everything. Is Dweck's whole idea about having a growth mindset all the time realistic? Not really because people have their faults, but it is a nice concept. People really should try to be successful by having a growth mindset towards life. 


A successful student works hard and, hopefully, reaps the benefits of hard work. College has taught me that the successful student is one that is happy with themselves and his/her performance in school. If that means 100% of effort should be given when it comes to school work, then the student should be willing to give that much effort. Again, the student does not wait for the “perfect” opportunity, but takes initiative and seizes any opportunity, seeing it as having potential. Whether or not the student thinks he/she is successful should be left up to he/she.


"Don't aim for success if you want it; just do what you love and believe in, and it will come naturally." - David Frost 

Stem Cell Research: Thinking Math and Abstract

Stem cell research can be easily connected to the mathematical and abstract thinking domain. In scientific research, data collected comes in the form of a graph, table, chart, etc. Considering the mathematical and abstract thinking domain deals with interpreting such things, then the thinking domain and stem cell research must coincide. The thinking domain also has the goal to evaluate solutions to a problem and produce decide which will produce the best results. Stem cell research also does this, for it targets the problems, which include diseases such as Parkinson’s, cancer, diabetes, etc., and evaluates the solutions given to these problems. Scientists believe the answers to these problems lie within stem cell research and the public seems to agree.

 According to a recent survey, sixty percent of fertility patients would agree to donate the unused embryos, which would be discarded anyway, to stem cell research. (“Fertility Patients”). This survey shows that stem cell research does have a public backing, but the American government still will not fund stem cell research on embryos. People with mathematical and abstract thinking would then see that one of the major solutions to the absence of federal funding would be to have private grants donated to the research. According to "Stem Cell Grants Worldwide", there is no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Private grants are provided to scientists in order for them to continue research on embryonic stem cells. Other scientists study stem cells in adults and some animals. The public does agree with stem cell research, with some still being undecided on where they stand, and the private donations show this.  

Works Cited:

1. Gardner, Amanda. "Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research." Health News, Discussions, Articles, and Resources. 6 July 2007. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/index.php?p=news1&id=605761.
2. "Stem Cell Grants Worldwide." Sciclips, an Apen Innovation Platform for Scientific Breakthroughs, Collaboration and Philantropism. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.sciclips.com/sciclips/stemCellResearch.do?expandable=20&grants=Y>.

Say No To Gender Divided Classrooms

Gender divided classrooms inhibits a child’s ability to grow socially through necessary interactions with the opposite sex. Respect for the opposite gender would also be hard to obtain due to the lack of social interaction between genders. Boys and girls do learn differently, but it is important for them to learn together so they know how to work together. It is important for the students to be able to learn in an environment that is like the world outside of school, which will include both genders in any work environment. In an article by Jennifer Friend, she states, "Results of this study led to the conclusions that same-gender grouping did not produce significant differences in student science academic achievement and same-gender classes did not create a more positive classroom climate." (Friend). So instead of
dividing the classrooms by gender, the curriculum used in the classroom should be able to engage all students, regardless of gender. Certain improvements that would help students more than gender divided classrooms could include more parental involvement, smaller class sizes, and also better trained teachers.

Friend, Jennifer. "Research on Same-Gender Grouping in Eighth Grade Science
Classrooms." Research in Middle Level Education Online 30.4 (2006): 1-15. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

Girls Are From Venus, Boys Are From Mars.

Are girls different than boys? For years now, the gender gap has not just been associated with the work force, but also education. It seemed that girls progressed faster in reading, while boys mastered the sciences and mathematics. According to a recent article by Kathryn Wiens, however, the gender gap seems to be in a state of retroversion.

  “Today it seems that girls are winning the academic race and the gender gap…is as wide as ever and showing no sign of retreat, though the roles are reversed.” (Wiens). This is how Kathryn Wiens explains the complete reversal of roles between girls and boys. She states that the widening of the gender gap could be caused by “an overemphasis on serving girls”. (Wiens). Many people would think that since boys are supposed to be “naturals” at math and science, that encouraging girls to be interested in the STEM subjects must be helpful for girls, but it is actually having an unintentional, negative effect on boys. “It seems…in our rush to ensure girls are given an equal chance to succeed in school and in life, we have forgotten to acknowledge and work to enhance the strengths and weaknesses of our boys.” (Wiens).

The focus on girls is not the only thing responsible for the gender gap. Since boys are naturally more active and physical, they may be suffering in the classroom because of this. According to Wiens, “…alongside girls – who are typically more organized, cooperative, and accomplished school learners – those ‘boys qualities’ quickly turn from assets to liabilities. (Wiens). The influence of culture and stereotypes may also have an influence on boys and their school work. “Among school-aged boys, one of the most prevalent beliefs is the ‘real boys’ don’t work hard in school; ‘real boys’ don’t care about school.” (Wiens). Positive role models could immensely help boys and their relationships with school and learning.

Boys and girls are anatomically different and this can also cause a difference in success in school. Girls and boys have different ear structures even. Girls have a stiffer and shorter cochlea and also stiffer hair cells in the ear, making it easier to pick up sounds than boys. Wiens describes that “the anatomical differences present in boys’ and girls’ ears make it necessary for boys to exert a greater effort to hear what is being said in class.” (Wiens). And since boys have a harder time hearing in class, wouldn’t it make sense for them to be more frustrated and turned off to school and learning? The brain lobes are also different in boys and girls. “The temporal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for auditory processing, speech, comprehension, naming, verbal memory, and other language functions, matures six years earlier in girls. Scientists believe that this difference could cause girls to perform language-based tasks with greater ease, especially those with verbal cues and stimuli.” (Wiens).

Carol S. Dweck, the author of Mindset, would agree that the educational gap is caused by stereotyping. On page 75 of her book, Dweck says “When stereotypes are evoked, they fill people’s minds with distracting thoughts – with secret worries about confirming the stereotype.” (Dweck). She would say that girl’s are more likely to fulfill their stereotypes, however, due to their “vulnerability”. (Dweck, pg. 78).

Wiens states that “As we address the problems of boys we must not forget about girls; pendulum swings are dangerous and all too common in American schools. The pendulum must rest in a space where our schools and society are inspiring all of our nation’s children to learn and to contribute to our society in meaningful ways.” (Wiens). I completely agree that education does not need to be biased towards gender. If society continues to label boys as being “lazy” and girls as being “scientifically challenged”, then the gender gap will just continue to grow.

In my experience, I have never felt slighted due to my gender. While I agree that there are anatomical and stereotypical differences of males and females, it does not give the excuse for either boys or girls to sit back and blame failure on their gender. 


Works Cited:
Wiens, Kathryn. "The New Gender Gap: What Went Wrong?." 11-27. Journal of Education, 2005.Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.


Dweck, Carol. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books, 2006. pp 78. Print.

He Said, She Said.

Outliers: the Story of Success, written by Malcolm Gladwell, is really the story of rich and high socially ranked people. Gladwell tells the tales of Silicon Valley billionaires, top New York lawyers, star athletes, etc. His view of success, as it seems, is that only the rich and people high in society can be considered successful. How they became successful is not just by their own terms either. He claims that “We pretend that success is exclusively a matter of individual merit. But there’s nothing in any of the histories we’ve looked at so far to suggest things are that simple... Their success was not just of their own making. It was a product of the world in which they grew up.”(pg. 67) This is Gladwell’s attitude throughout the book. He seems to be pushing a point that the way to be successful is already predestined and if you pass up on even one opportunity, then you will be passing up on being successful, according to Gladwell’s term of success. His way of measuring success is seen perfectly when he discusses Lewis Terman and his “Termites”. He states, “But few of [Terman’s] geniuses were nationally known figures. They tended to earn good incomes – but not that good.” (pg. 89) Not once does Gladwell speak of the “Termites” happiness or whether or not they feel self-fulfilled with their lives. So, in all reality, Gladwell’s view of success can be summed up at something of materialistic and shallow.

Mindset: the New Psychology of Success, written by Carol Dweck, is what she claims the book to be. Dweck focuses more on how a person’s mindset can affect how someone becomes successful or not. She shows how someone can fulfill his/her own potential and succeed, according to his/her own terms. Throughout her book, Dweck focuses on two mindsets, growth mindset and fixed mindset, and shows how these mindsets differ. On page 245 of Mindset, Dweck shows the two different mindsets and how they deal with challenges, obstacles, effort, criticism, and success of others. Those with fixed mindsets, as a result, “…may plateau early and achieve less that their full potential.” Those with growth mindsets, however, “reach ever higher levels of achievements.” (pg.245) Dweck states that “Those with the growth mindset found success in doing their best, in learning and improving.” (pg.98) Though Dweck uses famous athletes, a neurosurgeon, and famous artists to make her point, she does not say that the way success is measured is in the hands of others. Her book is all about bettering yourself and how success is more about achieving your goals and finding happiness.

Though both Gladwell and Dweck’s books are about success, the similarities of the books end there. Gladwell uses his book to just tell a story, while Dweck uses her book to inspire. Gladwell uses his book as more of a conspiracy theory, showing that the rich and high socially ranked people were born at the right time, location, and to the right family. Dweck uses her book more as a motivational work, encouraging people to approach life with a growth mindset and succeed by your own terms, not others. Personally, I agree with Dweck more than Gladwell. Her book just has more personal depth than Gladwell’s does. I actually learned that sometimes I have a fixed mindset to obstacles, and I will certainly work on that.

Success As The Disease

With a subtitle of "The Story of Success", Gladwell's Outliers would seem to be pushing the idea that success is the key to everything good in life. Someone who would write a book with a title like that, would not agree with the statement "Success is the 'disease of me'", so Malcolm Gladwell would not agree with this statement.

Gladwell does not believe success could be a bad thing for an individual. He believes that success is what everyone should reach for in their lives. He also believes success depends on where a person is from and what opportunities that person has. He seems to paint a picture of success being wealth and prestige, and does not realize that the meaning of success means different things to other people. Gladwell would agree with a statement claiming that failure is the disease, however.          

The idea that failure is the disease is supported by Gladwell’s example of Chris Langan’s attempt to go to college. Langan did not graduate from college because he lost his scholarship due to his mother’s neglect to fill out the correct forms to renew the scholarship. His failure to correctly fix the problem to speak to faculty that could help him resulted in him dropping out of college. Gladwell sees Langan’s avoidance of authority as something as a failure. Langan lives now with his wife and formed his own organization called the “Mega Foundation” that allows gifted people to develop their ideas. This seems perfectly successful to any other person; Langan is happy and living his life to help others. Gladwell, however does not mention Christopher Langan’s organization. He just states that his story of dropping out of college is “heartbreaking”.

I agree that success is the ‘disease’ to a certain point. If a person relies on just success of the past and not work forward to the future, having a fixed mindset, then that person will not get very far in life. Gladwell’s view of failure being the disease is also agreeable. If one fails and only focuses on the possibility of failing again, then he will not be able to succeed in the future, due to fear. However, you do learn from your failures. Look at Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, and Walt Disney. All three men failed in their journeys to greatness, but had growth mindsets, so they were able to not be defined by failure alone and continued to work hard to succeed.

A Natural?

The idea of natural ability is shoved into our minds at a very early age. I still remember my Kindergarten teacher telling me that I was a natural when it came to reading, but unbeknownst to her, I had already learned how to read before I entered her class. I didn’t have an affinity for words; instead, I just had more practice with them then the other students. So even though I was at a young age, I did not let the label of being a “natural” at reading go to my head; I continued to practice reading.

Coaches tell some of their “star players” they are naturals at their sport. Upon hearing this, the athlete starts to slack off on practice because if the idea of a natural truly exists, then why even bother to practice? Stating that someone is a natural seems to create a certain mindset that since he or she is a natural at something, he or she can go against the 10,000 hour rule which is completely incorrect. Famous athletes have been told that he/she have a natural ability for the sport he/she plays, but the difference between them and the others who were told at an early age that he/she had a natural ability is instead of deciding not to practice, the famous athlete worked hard to gain recognition. Sure, some athletes are built to be star athletes, but physical ability is worthless if someone decides to rely on “natural” ability versus practiced skill.

Michael Jordan is a perfect example of an athlete that was not labeled as a natural at a young age, but then greatly surpassed those who were labeled as “naturals”. Carol Dweck describes Michael Jordan’s struggle to greatness in her book Mindset. She states that Michael Jordan was cut from his varsity basketball team in high school, wasn’t recruited by his college of choice, and even wasn’t drafted by two NBA teams that could have chosen him first. Michael Jordan pinpointed his mistakes and worked at the things he was struggling with, creating his own success. Now that Michael Jordan is seen as one of the most legendary basketball players of all time, some people still see his success as being his physicality and not his willingness to work.  Michael Jordan corrects their mindset by saying “The mental toughness and the heart are a lot stronger than some of the physical advantages you might have. I’ve always said that and I’ve always believed that.” 

I personally do not believe in such a thing as a “natural”. Physical maturation and opportunity is never considered when the label of a “natural” is being used. If someone wants to be successful in life, he or she must not rely on a label. As my track coach always told us “If it’s meant to be, it’s up to me.” This means that the only way to surpass ability is with practice.