Babbling Heads

The Professors at bloggingheads.com really seemed to believe they were on to something when they discussed the terms "Leader" and "Thinker." However, from the beginning of their discussion, I felt as though the terminology wasn't the best; as both 'leader' and 'thinker' sound somewhat empty and don't exactly seem to apply the meanings they were assigned. By redefining these terms and examining them more closely, a solution for establishing a better connection between student and university can be revealed.

For example, Professor Deresiewicz explains a leader as one who is influenced by the university to be successful, and to end up supporting and donating back to the school. As put by his friend from Yale, "The purpose of Yale College, is to manufacture Yale Alumni." In an attempt to "redefine" familiar words, Deresiewicz turns a leader into something negative - A product of manufacture. In reality, a leader should be a role model to look up to and follow. ironically, the Dictionary's first example of the use of the word is "as in: The leader of a protest or group." The professor's definition in no way relates to how a leader is usually defined. Perhaps using the word 'follower' or 'profiteer' would better suit the definition. Both of these words more clearly imply a connotation of following a straight path, or doing as told. Being called a follower suggests that even once one has graduated to become either a donating alumnus or head of the school, as opposed to leading it, they will continue to follow in the footsteps left by their predecessors and ancestors. The problem with the word 'Leader,' is that it already has a naturally positive tone, as if the leader will lead the school in a new, beneficial direction.

This term is then compared to those who are defined as "thinkers." As described by Deresiewicz, thinkers are supposedly those who are more critical of the school, trying to find flaws to improve upon. I don't believe this term fits its respective definition either, however I think it's more appropriate than Leader. The term "Thinker" is a closer fit, but certainly still far too narrow. Is this to say that if someone uses their mind to think, it can only mean that they're a cynic, hoping to point out every noticeable flaw? Of course not. 

It would make more sense to be less general with their word choice. The word 'thinker' has in the past been used into referring to philosophers, who often times were sarcastic and cynical. But it's not specific enough of a word in this case. To choose a word with more obvious implication would be better. For example, instead of 'thinker,' perhaps cynic, constructivist, or even critic would inform the listener almost immediately what the expression was referring to. 

This illustrates another issue. The Professors discuss these two traits as if students must be one of these terms. Who is to say any of this is true at all? These professors essentially just made up some terms, assigned their own meaning to them and had a 10 minute discussion about them. I agree somewhat that universities generate a certain amount of followers and cynics, (titles I feel are more appropriate) but by no means is every single student either one or the other. Universities should strive to produce hybrid students. Students who can appreciate and support their schools, while still critiquing it and taking action to voice their opinions and make it better. After all, a university's purpose is to teach students the skills necessary to make a living. So students should be the ones giving the input. They're the ones who attend class every day, and in the end are the ones with the education provided to them by the school. 

The professors discussed the two terms as if having students that fit both descriptions was implausible. It seems perfectly possible to have students that care about their school and are willing to see to it that the college survives in good condition. In a way, leaders and thinkers seem like they need each other to survive. It makes sense for students to need the attributes of both a leader and a thinker. How can one lead a school if their ideas are not unique or at all critical of how it is being run? Equally, what good is a thinker who doesn't support their criticism by taking action to be heard? 

One might assume due to the pessimistic tone of this response that I am a cynic or thinker, myself. This may be true. But I don't want to be defined by some random professor. I like to think I'm more than just a leader, or just a thinker; a student who can make a difference in the lives of others, while giving helpful criticism to better the school. This is what colleges need. Just think if the population of a school, instead of being divided by the term leader and thinker, was brought together because every student had attributes of both a leader and thinker. It would be much stronger to say the least, because rather than having some people following blindly to drive the school, and others only complaining, virtually every student would be working together to constantly reconstruct and shape the school into something new and effective. 

A school that is constantly evolving due to the input and guidance of it's students ( as well as the faculty) is better suited to the needs of students, and is more likely to prepare them for their career.