I recently had a chance to talk on the phone with an old high school friend who was an extremely talented artist. Paul (not his real name) took a few college courses, none of them in art, but dropped out before getting any degree.
I have vivid memories of glancing over during high school classes to see Paul doing something he did extremely well: drawing. He used a standard #2 pencil to do his magic. He cranked out dozens of expressive and lifelike bodies, faces, and hands. He did his work on the backs of class handouts, envelopes or any other scrap of paper he could get his hands on. I know I’m not exaggerating Paul’s abilities, because I’ve saved dozens of his drawings. The hands Paul drew might have been his best work. I remember Paul drawing, from memory, a vivid Sistine Chapel reproduction of God’s hand reaching out to touch Adam’s.
After the bell would ring, students would sometimes gather around Paul to see what he had been drawing. I can’t count the number of times that students would ask him how he did what he did. Paul was reluctant to discuss how. Maybe he didn’t understand how. His approach was to show, not tell.
Paul failed to pursue art in college. After struggling through general liberal arts classes for a few years, he dropped out of college to take jobs involving manual labor. He has always been a diligent worker, but his jobs have never really challenged him. When I spoke with Paul today, he indicated that he still has a passion to draw, but hasn’t pursued it.
Talking with Paul today reminded me of an encounter he had two decades ago. Paul attended a party where one of the other guests was Maurice. Back then Maurice had already gone to college and successfully obtained an art degree. Maurice played up that he was an “artist,” and that he had a job as an artist. This annoyed Paul, especially when he personally heard Maurice bragging of his art degree and artist job. At that party two decades ago, some of the other guests, including several attractive females, appeared to be impressed with Maurice. You could see the tension building in Paul.
Toward the end of the evening, Paul walked up and challenged Maurice in front of the other guests:
“Maurice, what kind of artist are you? Maurice, draw a hand!”
Maurice looked confused. The other guests looked at Maurice.
Paul grew louder: “Maurice, draw a hand. You are an artist, right? Then draw a hand! A hand, Maurice. Just draw a hand!”
The party grew quiet. The air was tense, as though two gunslingers with twitchy fingers were facing off.
But Maurice wouldn’t draw a hand. Maurice couldn’t draw hands. Even though he had a college art degree, Maurice couldn’t pick up a simple pencil to draw the kind of hand that would impress anyone.
Paul stood silent for more than a minute as Maurice contemplated what to say. Eventually, Maurice muttered that he wouldn’t draw a hand. Paul had made his point and he sat down, visibly shaken and somewhat embarrassed at the scene he had made.
I’ve always wondered whether Paul wasn’t really as angry with Maurice as he was with himself that he hadn’t developed his own unique talent.
I’ve often thought of this encounter between Paul and Maurice when I’ve heard someone dissing people who don’t have college degrees. I’m fully aware that a college degree can open employment doors. But a degree has almost nothing to do with competence or intelligence. I am often shocked at the ignorance, incompetence and lack of curiosity of college graduates. Many of them happily turned off the learning process the day they graduated. Many of them never really ever turned on the learning process–they got through college by regurgitating factoids. At my undergrad college, for instance, a student could obtain a psychology degree by answering true/false questions and filling in the blanks. The only required papers were a couple of lab experiment write-ups.
Even among those who have obtained advanced college degrees, I am regularly astounded at the lack of competence. For instance, there are considerable numbers of lawyers who I wouldn’t recommend to anyone in need of legal services, no matter how simple the task. But all attorneys have college degrees, of course.
I am not criticizing all colleges and degrees. I have been fortunate to have studied under many inspired and challenging college teachers. Some of the best classes I’ve ever taken, however, were audits of cognitive science graduate level classes after I received my degrees. I truly admire the competence of many of those students and teachers. And in the people I admire most, learning hasn’t ever stopped.
I will continue to hold out hope that Paul will make the decision to develop his gifts, whether or not he gets a college degree in the process. As for Maurice, I don’t know whether he ever learned to draw a hand . . .
My college degree is a testament to the patience and thickness of my dad's wallet. Took me 9 years total, with some hiatus, odd jobs, and lots of summer classes and a few semesters with only 2 or 3 classes. When I finally got my degree though, nearly a decade after matriculating, I was not worried about it being just a piece of paper. The experience and knowledge gained is not usually measured by the diploma. Many folks gain great experience and knowledge without graduating or even attending college, and vice versa that some folks graduate while still naive.
It's a two-edged sword. I've often said that the quality of a college education is more about the quality of the student than the quality of the institution. My father is fond of saying, "If you send a pig to college, do you know what you get? An educated pig!" On the other hand, if you don't send a talented artist to college, do you know what you get? A talented manual laborer.
I have (as Erich knows) enormous sympathy for the Pauls of the world. In the arts, college does two things–affords opportunities to learn things and teaches one how to network. It does not, by and large, teach you how to BE an artist.
In my experience, it is the networking that is at issue–the fact that the degree is like a password to get you interviewed, to get you to a certain level quickly, to get you "credibility" without having to jump through the same hoops time after time. Does this make one a better artist?
Paul, it seems, has one major handicap, which many people like him share–he doesn't know (or couldn't find a way to) make a living at what he loved to do. This could be from a number of factors, but the ability to "get a job" at something like this has less to do with ability than it has to do with who your employer perceives you to be. College is like a dating service in this respect–the forms are filled out in advance and risk is minimized by the appearance of formal acceptability.
I have taught writing workshops. College educated writers often do not understand the simplest thing about writing a story. This is not the fault of the college, since a lot of this has to do with talent, but because of the college process, many of these people are convinced they OUGHT to know how to do what they clearly do not. Furthermore, as Erich points out, the learning process often stops at graduation and even if they have some inkling that they need to learn more, you better be more credentialed than they are before they'll accept you word for anything.
We are a class society. It's based on degrees rather than birth. I've spent my adult life in two careers being apalled at the level of incompetence that comes out of colleges. To be fair, many of these folks would be incompetent whether they went to college or not, but because of the college degree they think their incompetence is unimportant.
The main thing I'd like to point out is that a college degree does have some correlation with competence. The vast majority of kids who fail out of college realistically decide to do so. I am one of the few professors that encourages kids who could succeed on the outside, and aren't ready for college, to stop wasting tuition money and drop out to get skills.
Jason: do you recall the post you wrote where you addressed the issue of college in detail? I did try to link to it, but was unable to track it down.
To hone in on another issue: the particular college from which you get your degree, also, doesn't matter. It would make sense that more selective colleges would have brighter, more competent students. Yet sharply talented people can come out of any institution, whether an Ivy or a community college. The knowledge and skill gained seems absolutely proportional to the amount of effort and enthusiasm placed into study.
I find the "enthusiasm" half especially crucial, because we often overlook it. Many students, compulsive straight-A-ers, slave for hours and hours on a heavy course load to achieve perfect grades, yet ultimately appear to have learned nothing. Perhaps because they didn't go in with the intention of learning, but instead with the intention of jumping through any hoops necessary to get that 4.0.
My favorite argument for doing college comes from a 1970's sitcom (I don't remember which) in which a father tells his daughter that she should attend college, not to find out how the world is, but to learn how it could be.
I was a lazy student. I breezed through high school doing the bare minimum of work, and staying in the top intellectual echelons (but barely in the top 20% in grades because of classes where ones grade was based on volume of homework completed). Then I slid into a premed program at a competitive college, where my classmates were all from the top of their classes. That was a shock. I had to wake up somewhat and apply myself in order to stay afloat. Suddenly, I was in an environment where the teachers expected students to absorb an idea after hearing it once in class, not repeatedly for a week as in high school.
But I learned that many of these bright students actually didn't get it. They could memorize, process, and regurgitate brilliantly. But only a few seemed to understand the subjects conceptually. This was fairly easy to detect in math and engineering classes, where the subject itself isn't as fuzzy as philosophy or literature. They learned what formulas to apply when, but not why that formula was developed or what it meant.
Did my degrees help me get a job? Maybe. I was dragging my feet on accepting a GS9 from the patent office, when a Teaching Assistant from one of my computer design courses called and asked if I could do an odd job for his company that summer. It was only programming and some light electronics, he apologized. I took the part time gig to pay the rent (I really didn't feel like moving to D.C. and working with lawyers), and within a week the president of the company offered me 30% more than the Government salary to stay on. So, I'd made a contact in college that got me my first job in a field in which I hadn't been looking.
Did the learning stand me in good stead? Well, I never subsequently used a Bessel function, nor have I had to transliterate cuneiform, nor to contrast the humanity of Melville's heroes with those of Poe and write it up in the style of Twain. However, I never stopped the process of learning. Furthermore, I am certain that the way that I learned to integrate ideas in college is the reason that my clients keep coming back for more.
I think, therefore I am employed.
But, one of my high school classmates (and chum from grade school till puberty) dropped out at 16. He went on to become Chief Scientist at Bridge Corp, then SAVVIS (that part of Reuters that gives Dow Jones its numbers).
Nice post, well-spoken. My husband is one of those incredibly talented, bright people who did not go to college, knowing full-well that he would be wasting his time there, and instead went into manual labor. No one wants to believe that a blue-collar worker can be intelligent; they just want grunt labor. He was considered expendable. After suffering with accumulated back pain that ended up being a permanent injury, I put my foot down and said he had to get out. He is now attending college and getting far more out of it than if he had gone straight out of high school. As a non-trad, he contributes far more in class than traditional students do. He knows how much the experience is costing him and how much it cost him to get there.
Here is one of the problems with this whole college ethic we have. You must know what you want to do when you graduate high school.
Some may. I didn't until I was 26. But it wouldn't have mattered, because the high school I attended did not provide for either of the fields I ended up working in.
My first job out of high school was in photography. As I've noted, I have worked in photography, one end or the other, for nearly 35 years. I am pretty good at it. I have something of an historian's knowledge of photography dating from the mid-19th century, and have actually worked with glass plates and once did a collodion wet plate (I won't describe it–wiki it if you're interested). I was a lab manager for almost a decade.
There was no photography course of any kind at my high school. The head of the art department was hostile to it (it's not art). I had no opportunity for any college prep. It didn't matter to me, I believed then as I do now that doing a thing is more instructive than being lectured about it.
In the other instance, I have become a professional, published writer of fiction. (Ten novels to date.) There was no creative writing course in my high school, therefore no college prep…
Not that there necessarily should have been, but because there wasn't it was not advised on by the school councilors. I had no idea creative writing was taught in college. No one "channeled" me in that direction.
I do not feel the lack except in the area of paper and pedigree. An opportunity once opened up to become the resident photo archivist at a museum. I had letters of recommendation from professors I had worked with, stating that I would be ideal in this position. Indeed, I had actually worked with the materials in question, etc etc.
I did not even get an interview. They required a masters degree. No phone call, not even a thank you for applying note. They, in fact, could not conceive that experience could trump a degree.
Personally I think this is pure snobbery and the mentality of a clique.
In another instance, I fell into a long conversation once with a bunch of folks who had all met at a creative writing program (college level). The circumstances are irrelevent, but I listened to them talk about their assignments, their "exercises", a number of aspects of the class. I finally asked if any of them had gone on to publish. No. A few had gone on to another semester or two. Then I asked, after listening to more class anecdotes, if any of them had ever gotten to finish a story in this class.
I was not answered. My attitude must have been obvious–as a vehicle for teaching one how to write a story, it seemed to me the class they took had been useless. (It is my opinion–limited though my experience may be to some–that doing "writing exercises" outside the context of a complete story is pointless. It's like shooting pictures with an empty camera, or daubing a canvas with a paint-free brush. Story is a holisitc thing, a whole, a gestalt, and the bits often don't add up to the whole, and shorn of the framing context, doing the bits right won't ever get you to a point where you can develop character, because part of character is bound of with dramatic effect, and that is absent in a fragment….anyway…)
I have bounced off many degreed people who knew less than I, cared less than I, and could do less than I–yet felt superior to me because of that degree. Why? Because they have a key to the club.
Jason, it's even worse than than you describe. There is an assumption that a degreed person can do more than a non-degreed person, and that more degrees translate to more capabilities. Yet there is that old definition of an expert: "An expert is a person who learned more and more about less and less until they knew absolutely everything about absolutely nothing."
I am an engineer. I work with Ph.D.s on a daily basis. I do not have a Ph.D. myself. They think the great thoughts; I take their great thoughts and translate them into useful things. Why don't they do that themselves? Because, in general, they cannot. But it's okay, because I cannot do what they do, either.
So why is it that when I look for the kind of job that I do best, I almost always find "Ph.D." listed in the requirements? Because, as you said, "They … could not conceive that experience could trump a degree."
All of you have missed the most important point of all: making art is not just about controlling the medium. Erich's friend, "Paul," might be naturally gifted at controlling the medium — drawing hands, for example — but that is not what makes an artist. What makes an artist is *knowing what to say* with your art. THAT is where a formal education separates a real artist from a craft show amateur. A formal education would give a guy like "Paul" knowledge about previous art movements, about politics, about peoples' emotional drives, about current events and artistic trends…the *reasons why* artists do what they do. That is how people become real artists.
Do you know why Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollack, etc., are considered great artists? It isn't because they could paint any better than other artists — lots of people can paint well — it was because they had *more important things to say* with their art than did other artists. Their work *inspired* people — not just other artists, but people throughout society. Their paintings opened up new movements in art, and new styles of expression. Do you know how they were able to do that? Because they understood art history and they understood society. They had important things to say and they understood why past art styles were insufficient for the ideas they wanted to express. This awareness — which "Paul" apparently does not have — is what enabled Picasso, Pollack, Warhol, etc., to create legendary art.
Conversely, craft shows and public art fairs are filled with people who have wonderful artistic ability, but who have nothing to SAY with their art. Their work is merely decorative; it has no important message. Education is what helps give a person the knowledge that enables him to know what to say, just as it gives writers the knowledge to know what to write about, or engineers the knowledge to know what needs to be invented. Without this knowledge, a talented engineer merely reinvents the wheel, a talented writer creates tired prose, and a talented artist spends his life drawing hands. Beautiful hands, perhaps, but that isn't what real art is about.
Edgar touches on this idea when he says that Ph.D.s "think the great thoughts." It is the same with art, music, architecture, engineering, law…all fields. Erich's friend "Paul" might be naturally gifted at drawing, but *knowing what to draw* is what would make him a real artist. Without an education…without any awareness at all of what has been done before and what needs to be done today, "Paul" is just another guy with a talent he doesn't know how to use. He is like a man with a million dollars who has no clue how to invest it, so, instead, he buries it in his backyard where it does no one any good. Formal education helps talented people refine and focus their talent where it can do some good…where it can have an impact and maybe make a difference. Why does a lawyer spend three years in law school? To learn important legal precedents, so he will know which new cases have merit and which ones do not. Art works in a similar way.
Can a person learn these things on his own, without going to college? Yes, of course, but few people (including Paul, apparently) have the self-motivation to do it. Erika says, "sharply talented people can come out of any institution, whether an Ivy or a community college." That's true, but it misses the point. Compared to a community college, Ivy-league colleges teach their graduates (on average) to think bigger thoughts and to dream bigger dreams — to reach higher and go farther. It is a rare community college that will do that. Simply put, higher education doesn't create sharp talent; it inspires people who *already have sharp talent* to use those skills to do important things — things like building cathedrals instead of utility sheds, writing legal briefs instead of restaurant menus, inventing rocket ships instead of wagon wheels…and making important art instead of drawing hands at cocktail parties.
With the above in mind, I disagree with the title of Erich's post. Paul did not get "revenge" on Maurice, he merely exploited the fact that the people at that party had the same misunderstanding about art that he had. In fact, Maurice knew what it meant to BE an artist, while Paul, despite his natural artistic talent, did not.
Grumpy,
Some–perhaps many–people require the structure of a formal educational setting in order to focus themselves and "discover" their talent. Other seem to "just know" how to think big thoughts and say things that are important. Still others can themselves find the books and the experience and self-organize and achieve what they set out to do.
The issue is not whether a university education has merit, but that a wall exists exclusively on the basis of degrees that keep certain people Outside of certain fields or at a lower level. While certainly universities offer the possibility of honing a talent, a skill, and ambition, it's no guarantee–but the reliance of so many on degrees as an indication of ability TO THE EXCLUSION OF DEMONSTRABLE ABILITYT is a shameful exercise in social pecking orders.
Frankly, though, if Maurice had really known what it meant to BE an artist, he likely wouldn't have gone on and on about his education and so forth that way. He was bragging on his laurels instead of letting reputation speak for him.
Picasso, btw, didn't go to college. At least, I'm fairly sure about that. And Warhol's college level work (viewable at the Carnegie in Pittsburgh) is average to mediocre at best. In his case, I'm still trying to figure out what it was he "had to say." Likewise with Pollock, whom I consider in the same light as Cerra and his slabs of rusty iron. But that's personal taste.
Grumpy: while I mostly agree that a quality education involves honing and understand the context for an ability or intellect, it seems like a far stretch to say that, for example, Ivy league students "think big thoughts" because their insitution has taught them to. A well-seasoned and well-regarded developmental psychologist at my institution (a far, far cry from an Ivy) has written about the phenomenon of "Harvard Graduate Syndrome". With Harvard's selectivity and quality education, you'd think that many of their grad s would go far and achieve much. But, as he studied these bright people, he found that they often fail to achieve much "remarkable" or "big". Sure, they attain higher income levels than average, but they don't stand out in their respective fields of interest as innovative or successful. They seem to fall back on the "Harvard" badge on their breast too much- they mention that they've graduated from Harvard at every possible opportunity- and not actually prove themselves by their own work. Much like Maurice, they flaunt a fancy degree but don't have the skills to show for it. At least, not as much as you'd think.
I think that the attitude that you must have a fancy degree in order to truly make something of your talents keeps people like Paul in their unfortunate, rather unfulfilled place.
Jason and Erika make good arguments, much of which I agree with. Indeed, I have spent virtually all of my own professional career working in fields for which I have no formal degree (and doing better quality work than many people who did), so I very much sympathize with the view that a degree doesn't necessarily mean anything. Nevertheless, we live in a fast-paced world in which degrees often function as surrogates for talent, because hiring managers simply won't spend the time digging through potentially unqualified candidates looking for the one needle in a haystack. I didn't make that rule, I simply choose to accept it. And I didn't say that everyone *must* have a fancy degree in order to truly make something of their talents; I said few people have the self-motivation to do it on their own. I still believe that to be a true statement and I will cite Paul as a case in point.
Moreover, going back to Erich's original post, I'll point out that "Maurice" didn't just have a degree: he also had a *job* as an artist, so I don't think we can legitimately use him as an example of someone who (as Erika says) "flaunts a fancy degree but doesn't have the skills to show for it." Plainly, Maurice's boss thinks he has the skills to do his job, so who are we to say otherwise? Just because Maurice couldn't draw a hand at a cocktail party, when challenged by a guy who had spent years honing that particular skill, doesn't mean much of anything as far as I can see. So he couldn't draw a hand — maybe his art job didn't require him to do that. That doesn't change the fact that Maurice was still making his living as an artist and Paul wasn't. I don't attribute that to Maurice having a degree; I attribute it to Paul not having the determination to overcome his lack of one. Yes, some hiring managers have arbitrary degree requirements, but not all of them do — especially in the art world. What evidence do we have that Paul spent any time *whatsoever* trying to find an artist job? We don't even have any indication that he has made a portfolio — and I would bet that a good portfolio would do a lot more for his job opportunities than would a degree.
As regards the "Harvard Graduate Syndrome" that Erika mentions, perhaps my own experience at Harvard can provide some perspective. No, I am not a Harvard grad, but I did attend some classes there while working on a graduate degree at MIT, and I also worked with some Harvard students in some of my classes, and also some of my friends went on to Harvard after graduation. Yes, some of them wear it on their sleeve, but most of the ones I knew didn't. Mostly, it is *other people* who make a big deal about it, and I found the same thing when I was an MIT student: other people usually made a bigger deal about it than did the students. Harvard students referred to it as "dropping the H-bomb" — deciding when, and whether, to tell a new acquaintance that they were attending Harvard. Based on my own experience, I would bet that many of the cases of people "bragging" about going to an Ivy League college are actually cases of those grads simply being forthright about where they studied, perhaps even excited about sharing some great memories, and other people overreacting or simply seeing what they expect (or want) to see: someone with an Ivy League education who is arrogant and incompetent. People often distort their perceptions to fit their preconceived beliefs. Are the people at Ivy schools smarter or more talented? The joke we had at MIT was that we spent our first month wondering how *we* got in, then spent the rest of our time there wondering how *everyone else* got in. As at all schools, there is a broad spectrum of people, and not everyone is the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, truth be told, being the sharpest knife in the drawer is not always the key to success, nor is it always the key to getting into an Ivy school. Having connections and rich parents helps a lot, too, which is why private Ivy colleges heavily recruit such people. They're not stupid — they want alums who will do two things for the school: enhance its reputation and donate lots of money throughout their careers. With these two goals in mind, it should not be too surprising that guys like George Bush have degrees from Ivy League schools. Do not make the mistake of assuming that the only goal of an Ivy League school is to crank out the smartest, most talented grads: these schools are, after all, for-profit businesses. Sometimes they will take a less intelligent student simply because he or she has unusual life experiences — for example, a parent who is a senator, ambassador or king. Those kids need good educations, too, because, intelligent or not, they will likely have very distinguished careers simply because they have extreme wealth and extraordinary connections.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I agree that degrees *should not* make a big difference in hiring, but the fact is they do. And as long as that is the case, then guys like Paul can either take the well-traveled route of a formal education or they can try to cut their own path. Either route can lead to success but, from what Erich has said, Paul is doing NEITHER, so I don't see why any of us should feel badly for him for not becoming a success. Either go to school and get the degree (as many artists have), or go do the work that is equivalent and earn a reputation that way (ditto), but please don't feel sorry for a guy who does NOTHING AT ALL and who then gets mad at cocktail parties about the successful, happy people who did the work that he is unwilling to do. He dug his own hole and he needs to pull himself out of it. We can offer our support, certainly, for whatever he chooses to do, but if he just sits in his hole getting angry, then I see no reason why we should demonize all of society for the fact that he is not a success.
One more question for those who bemoan the need for a college degree: when you put YOUR money on the table, do you prefer someone with a formal certification or do you just hire someone who is "just as good?" Doctor? Dentist? Teacher? Pharmacist? Architect? Lawyer? Car mechanic? Barber?
Of course, being an artist isn't something that requires a college degree, but the fact remains: he who has the money gets to make the rules, and sometimes those rules are completely subjective and arbitrary. Guess what: it's still their money; if you want some of it, then you need to play by their rules — just as when someone wants YOUR money and they have to play by YOUR rules.
The Dean of Admissions of MIT was just fired. Marilee Jones had been doing a great job, but she was caught in a 28-year old lie that she had an undergrad and a grad school degree that she didn't actually have. She had worked herself up to the position Dean from being a clerical worker. In his commentary in Time Magazine, Michael Kinseley wrote that what did her in was the lack of "paper merit. Degrees, test scorees, recommendation letters: these are all artificial substitutes for real merit.''
Erich,
What did her in was lying about it. That renders one untrustworthy on several levels, not just the paper one. Unfortunately, the system is so rigged that she would never have gotten to that position without the concommitant pedigree, and since she didn't for whatever reason have it, she found herself in a position many probably do–lying about.
BTW, the opposite happens occasionally. When my father was a department head at Emerson, he had to turn away many qualified applicants because their degrees were TOO high and the job for which they applied required a lower one–because a specific salary was attached to the degree, and he was prohibited from hiring, say, a Masters Degree for the price of a Bachelor, even if the poor guy really badly needed the job. So some folks, in certain fields, occasionally "dumb themselves down" as it were just to get a job.
If getting a degree was so easy, then people should just get it and improve their chances at job interviews instead of trying to diminish other people's achievements. As far as I've seen it, appreciation for a skill or accomplishment often only comes with having had similar experiences and with overcoming similar obstacles to reach one's goals.
Maurice was a braggart and Paul has a huge chip on his shoulder. He could have shrugged it off as a minor irritation, but he chose to unleash his anger at someone who represented to him an utterly unfair obstacle to gain public recognition of his art. He could have put up a fantastic portfolio with his best works as grumpypilgrim suggested, instead he chose to withdraw and condemn the world for its unfairness. The reason he is not successful as an artist is not that he failed college, the reason is his decision to give up on himself and his art. I know, some people are more lucky than others, they have a good friends, a close family, committed teachers who support and encourage them, who give them emotional strength and self-confidence, but you can complain as much that life did not bed you on roses, it will not change anything about your life. You got what you got, so try to make the best out of it, because if you don't nobody will.
I recently finished reading a book by Mohamed Choukri – "For bread alone". He tells about his childhood in Morocco, which is marked with hunger, fear, violence, desires and bleak despair. The extreme poverty takes away the thin veil of civilization and exposes the baser human instincts. Nevertheless, at the age of 20 he decided to learn to read and write. Somehow that makes me believe that no matter how bad the circumstances are, if there is something inside us that is worth it, it will find a way out.
"if there is something inside us that is worth it, it will find a way out."
I think that is a bit wishful. In my experience, it is the parents, the teachers, the friends, the altruists (can't seem to think of the right word here), and the individual's experiences which molds the person.
Hello all there,
this is so interesting to read. Especially that last thing.
I´ve just decided to drop out of college in germany, because I cannot go on like that. After three years of giving everything and getting back only some, i now find myself a little perspectiveless.
Well, I am quite a talented guy. I produce stunning music that many people like, i am talented in languages and sports. Law hasn´t given me any satisfaction and i don´t know how to work with my talents.
I am thinking about the Hotel Industry or maybe being a steward at Airlines and see some of the world.
I am not asking you to tell me my perfect occupation, just want to tell you, that i now feel better, knowing that i will NOT graduate and will have to work as a lawyer or taxi driver… (like many law graduates do in germany when they can´t find a job after college)…
There is definetely something inside me, that can make me successful, and get a job at something that i can be passionate about. I don´t need a big bling bling mansion or a Ferrari, just want to be able to climb or bike from time to time, and no heart attacks. Thats gotta be possible and i will find my way. I feel a new "freedom to move" and choices are endless, just gotta pick the right one.
Thanks for reading, i just found this page pretty inspiring!
"I think that is a bit wishful. In my experience, it is the parents, the teachers, the friends, the altruists (can’t seem to think of the right word here), and the individual’s experiences which molds the person."
I never said that it would be easy and certainly it would go much much faster if you have the right environment to explore and develop your skills, but your skills are a part of who you are, they won't go away because you ignore them. You don't stop being an intelligent person, because your environment is dull. Eventually you will leave it, because you just don't support it anymore.
We all are born with certain personality traits, good and bad ones, the bad ones through the influence of a positive surrounding might be less aggravating, but they continue existing, albeit in a weaker and more manageable form. For example, impatience. It's not really a third degree sin, nevertheless it's quite difficult to get rid of. Why should it be so much different with the positive things?
Mindcircus, I had a period like that too. Just remember, you can always go back to college. I took a couple years off, when things weren't going my way, and worked in restaurants. What you can't have back is time. Roll with the punches, take some time off, switch majors, or become an entreprenuer. Just try to keep your mind active while you have those temporary jobs, and you will be fine. Put your resume on the internet too! 3 years of college is plenty to get past the "paper" hurdle. The world is your muffin!
"We all are born with certain personality traits"
"In only a very few cases is it fair to say that a trait is due almost entirely to nature, or almost entirely to nurture."
Not that you were saying that, but a good link still!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurtur…
Thanks, will keep this in mind.
The Art of Drawing anyone? Follow this link.
Damn, my drawing of a hand STILL looks like a turkey!