To the columnist who wrote to the class of 2012
Dear Bret Stephens,
Thank you for your non-congratulations to the members of the class of 2012. Since you asked me to, I will indeed spare you self-pity about graduating. And I will tell you why I can spare you:
You wrote that we will be moving in with our parents after graduation. You wrote, based on an experience you once had giving one (1) interview, that knowledge counts, and we, the Class of 2012, don’t even know who the President of the United States was in 1956. You wrote that we’re in worse shape than our peers “in places like Ireland, France, India and Spain,” where people speak several languages—”Unlike you,” you wrote. You wrote that our resumés are endless advertisements for ourselves with things like “internships” and “school papers” (I think you and I may have a different opinion of what a CV is, but I digress). You wrote that our “generation has an especially bad case” of comforming “because your mass conformism is masked by the appearance of mass nonconformism.”
Here is what I have to write to you:
“Many of you have been reared on the cliché that the purpose of education isn’t to stuff your head with facts but to teach you how to think. Wrong.” See, I disagree, Mr. Stephens. I think it’s right. I think what we’ve been doing here is learning how to think. To do things like see the flaws in arguments such as yours. To point out that saying “many of you have been reared on the cliché” is actually to invent a reality that doesn’t really exist because you thought it made for a more convincing column. To note that citing one interview and one intern as proof is incredibly misleading. To say that just because you assert that we have “mass conformism masked by the appearance of mass nonconformism” doesn’t make it true.
Mr. Stephens, I am not your straw man. I am not moving back in with my parents to live aimlessly after graduation. I do, in fact, speak several languages. I have been bombarded with columns just like yours since I was a first-year. Columns about the uselessness of my education and the horrors of the economy and how horribly, hopelessly lost I’m supposed to be. About how my peers and I are allegedly pitying ourselves.
But I look around my graduating class, Mr. Stephens, and I don’t see self pity. I don’t see the picture that you painted in your piece. I see people who are going to fix the problems that your generation, not ours, created. I see future doctors and lawyers, investment bankers and consultants, writers, and teachers. Mostly, however, I see people who know. Who know because they were part of a diverse and dynamic student body, because they have a willingness to adapt to ever-changing times, but also because they—we—received an education that taught us that it is highly commendable to take time to think about the sort of people we want to be, not the people a columnist who does not care to know us tells us that we are.
And by the way, Mr. Stephens: Dwight Eisenhower was the president in 1956. He was also president of Columbia University. I like to think he’d have offered our class his heartiest congratulations.
Emily Tamkin is a Columbia College senior and a former Spec editorial page editor. She is guessing that she will neither intern nor interview for Bret Stephens. Alas.
ugh
Fuck you.
You suck, SEAS 15. This was an excellent post.
SEAS kids seem to think that they will escape the economy and thus none of this stuff touches them. lulz.
Please don’t generalize about SEAS kids. I’m sure most of them would love this answer from Emily.
Yeah, seriously, fuck you and your entire class
I would have more respect for a senior and a Spec editor.
Thanks,
SEAS 12
haha, tensions are definitely high on campus, for an ‘ugh’ to receive 95 downvotes…
that said, go emily!
Great video! Very informative! Im not alone in syniag that I love chocolate so it’s great to hear that there is a healthy chocolate available that still tastes great.VA:F [1.9.10_1130]please wait…VA:F [1.9.10_1130](from 0 votes)
bravo!
“But I look around my graduating class, Mr. Stephens, and I don’t see self pity. I don’t see the picture that you painted in your piece. I see people who are going to fix the problems that your generation, not ours, created.”
preach
I REALLY loved that! :-D
“And by the way, Mr. Stephens: Dwight Eisenhower was the president in 1956. He was also president of Columbia University. I like to think he’d have offered our class his heartiest congratulations.”
And that’s what really matters!
this is how I see our class too. beautiful. thank you!
i’m gonna miss emily.
Chad Berney Posted on Good one fellas. I taltloy agree with Mike about the Last Waltz. Greatest concert film ever made, hands down. I mean what other concert could you go to and get served Thanksgiving dinner? Brian, my first wax was also Thriller. Good choice sir. Send me some Motor Boat stat!
Why is it that according to both the OP and this column, science is not acknowledged as a reasonable career path? According to OP, scientists and engineers are only worhtwhile as future bankers and consultants. According to our classmate Ms. Tamkin, science does not appear on her list of professions that can save the world and fix the mistakes of the past. For shame.
don’t you think if she listed every profession that could change the world this would be a mighty long column… don’t be so touchy.
where does the column say that science isn’t a viable career path? I think you’re searching for something to be offended by here… She merely left off “chemist,” along with anthropologist, linguist, computer programmer, interior decorator, politician, and all the other amazing careers our fellow Columbians will someday have for no other reason than succinctness. There’s absolutely no vendetta against science contained anywhere in this article.
I’ve recently staetrd a web site, the info you provide on this website has helped me tremendously. Thanks for all of your time & work. It is no use saying, We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. by Sir Winston Churchill.
I LOVE YOUR SASS GIRL!!!! TOLD HIM OFF JUST LIKE HE DESERVES! <3 ML
Hiya, I’m really glad I have found this info. Nowadays brlggeos publish just about gossips and internet and this is actually irritating. A good web site with exciting content, this is what I need. Thanks for keeping this website, I’ll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not find it.
One of the comments complained about Ivy League graduates’ “tabula rosa” minds. If you’re going to accuse us of not knowing enough languages …
you had to look up the president in 1956, didn’t you?
Tamkin’s still got it. The irony of that last paragraph is pretty rich.
She’s a good writer, and correct in her criticism of Brett Stephens. But let’s be honest– this op-ed was permeated with the self-righteous indignation and arrogance that I have come to expect from our entitled, albeit talented and well-educated, class. I don’t think this helped our case.
Self-righteous and indignant, always. Arrogant, maybe. But I’m not entitled. It’s another word that people throw at our generation without understanding why they’re doing so. I think our class is going to go out and work hard. I think we’re going to make our own way. I think we’re going to be alright (the kids are, they tell me). And I don’t think that makes me, or you, or anyone else entitled.
I don’t think her response was self-righteous at all. It’s an excellent piece.
My only complaint is that she blames this Murdoch buffoon on the baby boom generation. He is not representative of that rather decent, if diverse, group of people, and blaming them for him is as misplaced as his blaming Obama for the economic collapse Mr. Stephens’ own employers had such a conspicuously large role in creating, well before Obama, whatever his faults, was even elected.
What exactly is one supposed to respond to that particular article with besides indignation?
Awesome response Emily!
I found this post highly ironic. The author condemns Stephens for using personal anecdotes to support his points–which obviously leaves Stephens with a weak and limited argument–but then uses her own personal anecdotes to refute his conclusions. For example, when she talks about her class at Colombia, she says, ” I look around my graduating class, Mr. Stephens, and I don’t see self pity. I don’t see… I see… I see… I see.” That’s exactly what Stephens was doing; seeing. As for her final ‘slap in the face’ to Stephens, she writes that “I like to think [Eisenhower would] have offered our class his heartiest congratulations.” I’m sure she would like to think that, but on the basis of what evidence beyond her feelings does she think he would? To summarize, Tamkin is making the exact same logical errors that Stephens made. So when she says that “what we’ve been doing here is learning how to think. To do things like see the flaws in arguments such as yours,” it makes me glad that I’m not at Colombia, where the students are evidently taught only to think that they can think.
I’m at Columbia, not Colombia.
“Colombia”
I have been browsing onilne greater than 3 hours nowadays, but I never found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It is lovely worth sufficient for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you probably did, the web will probably be much more useful than ever before.
you don’t even go here
I’m also glad you’re not at ColUmbia
Despite your last sentence which I find a bit too harsh, your remarks are true. Which is why, although I do agree with Emily on several matters, this column does not strike me that much…
…that’s the extent of your rebuttal? That’s the only flaw you found in my argument?
No. I thought your argument missed the point of my argument, which was that his description of the class of 2012 makes one wonder how well Stephens knows the class of 2012. I think your argument is a gross simplification of my argument and a willful misreading of my last paragraph. However, as Eisenhower said of McCarthy, “I will not get into the gutter with this guy.”
The point of my argument was that I, as a reader, have no way of knowing if you know your class any better than he does, given that your argument uses the same tactics his does. As for me oversimplifying your argument: just how complex is it supposed to be? I find it fairly straightforward. And looking back, I’m not sure how I misread that last paragraph, but I’d be happy to know why you think I did.
Congratulations, Ms. Tamkin, you’re the exceptions that proves the rule. Spend some time outside the ivy covered walls of Columbia and you’ll find Mr. Stephens’ generalizations are not far from wrong. I think your righteous indignation comes from having someone tell you the unvarnished truth because I’m fairly certain you’ve never been exposed to it in school.
Welcome to real life, sweetheart. Life doesn’t care about your feelings. Most everyone else doesn’t, either.
Thank you for the welcome, Ralph Gizzip. But I am not your sweetheart.
There are many exceptions to the rule in that case. Emily isn’t alone, and it’s a wide misconception to believe that Columbia students live in a bubble. Indeed, there’s a lot to learn out there, and we all know that.
“When given a choice, older people prefer to read negative news, rather than positive news, about young adults, a new study suggests. In fact, older readers who chose to read negative stories about young individuals actually get a small boost in their self-esteem, according to the results.”
http://scienceblog.com/37964/do-old-people-suck-over-50s-prefer-negative-stories-about-young-people/
To the unchecked self righteousness of Bret Stephens http://dullhatchet.blogspot.com/2012/05/wsj-writer-bret-stephens-to-class-of.html?showComment=1336506482590#c5715486074939345446
That was an excellent dissection of Stephens’ column. Thanks, I liked it.
My favorite part of his article: “But if you can just manage to tone down your egos, shape up your minds, and think unfashionable thoughts, you just might be able to do something worthy with your lives.”
I was personally hoping for “next steps to resolve your Class dilemma”. Instead I get fluffy solutions, rhetoric, and hard-to-understand language that don’t lead themselves to solutions.
All of the comments on his article follow a singular form of logic by Boomers and Gen X: I have 20+ years on you and I am going to beat you with my seasoned experience and wisdom, and you have not rebuttal because you are too young but you are obviously already a failure.
I have one clear statement: shut up Stephen, and start fixing things. Then, when we have made progress fixing and providing ACTUAL solutions to our healthcare system, education system, business sectors, financial sectors, and housing markets, we’ll chat.
Ms. Tamkin,
Nice job of missing the point of Mr. Stephens article (which is that your generation does not learn a real US and World history, but rather a revisionist liberal version of same, a or the tendency for it to repeat) and then going completely and balistically defensive.
Your response played right into his argument that your class still has a lot to learn, and pay for……unless of course you went to Columbia on grants-in-aid or your parents checking account.
Kindest Personal Regards.
I got the impression that the point of Stephens’ post was that we think having gone to college automatically gives us the right to the jobs we want. Emily’s response, which is that we are expecting to work hard and to confront tremendous challenges, seems appropriate to me.
I’m all for shitting on pasty old WASPs… but he has kind of has a point. There are a growing number of disturbing sociocultural trends among our generation, one of which being the downhill slide of STEM which you were curiously mum about in your article. By thinking that emphasizing how “awesome” your 2012 class of Columbia University was would be a sufficient response to all the issues he raised, you fed right back into his argument.
Of course the girl who graduating from Columbia University responds back with “Nuh uhh, I go to an Ivy League school and my peers are doing just fine, thank you!” Not everyone goes to Columbia. Yes, you may be surrounded by amazing and motivated classmates-but we can’t say the same for every young person. You’re failing to see the bigger picture, failing to see beyond your scope of influence and experience. More and more people are being disenfranchised by The Great College Education Bubble as they graduate with cookie-cutter profiles or unemployable skills. Of course it isn’t just our fault, politicians and corporations are implicit as well. What we need is a giant upheaval of the educational system.
Except that he does explicitly call out Ivy League students in the piece. The student who doesn’t know who was president in 1956 is specifically referred to as an Ivy League student. And the talk of entitlement and sardonic welcoming to the real world is something that is, I think, often leveled specifically at “top tier” colleges and universities. Which is why I think that a criticism of this article from a student at my school is indeed apt. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Fair point, but it isn’t by bashing the victims of a lousy education system that you solve such a problem. I understand Stephens tried to attack a liberal tendency in education and point out its misgivings. But he targeted the wrong people. As Emily pointed out, it’s his generation that made such a mess.
He’s not old. He’s a 38-year-old product of a rich household and a prep school that cost more than most colleges. Of course he has some points about the education system but that’s not who he’s ripping with most of the article. He’s blasting a generation that hasn’t done anything yet for failure and using nothing to support his point except three anecdotes, one of which involved someone from a different generation. He’s blaming the victim.
And we’ve NEVER been in front of the world in pre-university STEM education. That’s not new.
- From, the guy that wrote the post linked above, at 8:11 pm (by someone else)
Emily, thank you so much for this.
Here’s some advice from another member of Stephen’s generation. I think it’s relavent. Don’t let people—least of all WSJ editorial writers with nothing better to do than shit on youthful idealism— generalize you, your past, or your future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbnFJVgBcw0
His delivery was obnoxious and self righteous, but he makes an excellent point about education. Learning how to think is certainly the most important part of an education for most of us, but one cannot underestimate the value of knowledge. In order to know how to connect the dots, knowing what the dots *are* is extremely important. It’s also a different kind of knowledge from the kind you suggest in your piece–being informed by exposure to diversity.
I’m glad you took him on, the guy’s an ass, his refusal to congratulate a graduating class on four years of doubtlessly hard work (what a turd), but his was an indictment on nationwide education. You have to acknowledge that we’re the exception to many of the rules listed out here.
beautiful response to the ugliest, most bitter column i think i may have ever read. we’ll miss you emily!
There’s a lot of truth to what Stephens says but it’s a classic troll column. He’s trying to be unnecessarily obnoxious in order to get more hits…looks like he succeeded.
I’m surprised by his eagerness to cheapen his more substantive points with Obama-bashing…then again, he’s Bret Stephens and it’s the WSJ opinion section. Of course Obama is the #1 reason for high unemployment right now. Every other country enjoys V-shaped recoveries after financial crises. And he wants to whine about others not knowing their history, leave aside the economics of the matter.
If he could prevent his prickishness from overflowing onto the page, some of his points are actually quite valid, or at least deserving of respect. But then his article probably wouldn’t be read either. CURSE YOU TIME INCONSISTENCY PROBLEM
LOL … looks like Long Island may have a perfect storm of Smug headed its way ….
some david foster wallace bs that gets trotted out every year around graduation time in defense of the value of liberal education. not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s kind of boring.
I think that Tamkin aka ET takes advantage of the great mistake in the Stephens piece, which is setting up a target on the Ivy League. A lot of what Stephens says is accurate about non-elite educational institutions that do not, in fact, teach people how to think.
Dear Emily,
I don’t know you, but I just want to say that I wish I did.
This response reminds me of everything that is right about Columbia: that as students and thinkers, we are taught to stand up. We are in an environment that constantly pushes us to have an opinion, to act, and that is what you have done in this response.
I also found the column to be absolutely offensive – to address an entire class and make sweeping statements as Stephens did makes me think he needs to check his ego himself. As such, your response here is very heartening to read.
Congrats on your time here. I know you will do well “in the real world”. (And thank you for a great diversion from studying for finals).
Thank you so much, CC 2014! (And good luck on those finals.)
Ia1a6ll right away take hold of your rss feed as I can not find your email subscription link or e-newsletter sceivre. Do you’ve any? Please let me realize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.VA:F [1.9.11_1134]please wait…VA:F [1.9.11_1134](from 0 votes)
Emily, very well said. this dude is a tool. show him what’s up.
I really don’t have a problem with most of what this guy said, and agree with most of it, but to start off by saying “Let me not congratulate you” is just kind of mean. why would you even say that? it comes off as an attack. he’s also just a fuc*in d*ck, trying to attribute blame. i find it funny when he said that too many people major in stuff thats impractical when he must be working with a bunch of journalism majors (who most people would classify under “impractical” – not me don’t bash me). you can major in what you want, and learn what you want, as long as you understand employers may not be looking for what you learned. he’s just a dick
I really don’t have a problem with most of what this guy said, and agree with most of it, but to start off by saying “Let me not congratulate you” is just kind of mean. why would you even say that? it comes off as an attack. he’s also just a fuc*in d*ck, trying to attribute blame. i find it funny when he said that too many people major in stuff thats impractical when he must be working with a bunch of journalism majors (who most people would classify under “impractical” – not me don’t bash me). you can major in what you want, and learn what you want, as long as you understand employers may not be looking for what you learned. he’s just a dick
Emily, happy to know that you were not born into Bret’s family. Then your talents may have been wasted in his energy-draining, polemical, uninspirational aura.
Spent most of the night reading and thinking about this topic. I really appreciate your words here, Emily. It stood up for a generation that did not deserve to be lambasted, especially from a 38 year old WSJ writer.
In moving forward, I think ultimately the only prudent option for all of us here is to acknowledge that people like these exist both in ANY generation (it’s just a matter of who initially provokes a conflict..) and look for our sources of inspiration elsewhere. I think you would agree.
So where do we start looking?
Давай товарищ! Давай!
fuck yeah – proud graduate of class of 2012
This article attacks Stephens for using a non-representative sample of one student, then goes on to use a non-representative sample of one student itself (“I’m not moving back with my parents”).
This article attacks Stephens for providing no evidence (“just because Stephens says x doesn’t make x true,”) and then goes on to say “my generation will fix the problems,” while providing no evidence for that.
Hypocrisy fail.
As a Columbia 2012 grad, I agree that Ivy League students take ourselves way too seriously.
And we are entitled–how many of us are planning to pay our parents back for the money they spent on our education? I mean pay them back in money.
My point is that he paints all of 2012 – yourself included – with the same brush, and that that’s remarkably unhelpful. And proof of the sort of lazy thinking of which he accuses our class.
The evidence that our generation will fix the previous one’s problems will come when they actually do. Yes, that sentence is more for rhetoric than statistics, but I also happen to believe that it’s true. If that’s taking myself too seriously, then, sure, fine. Too serious. But I’d rather take myself too seriously than let Bret Stephens tell me how to take myself.
Thanks for the response. Can you also address the point about your glass-house critique of his one-person sample, and about entitlement?
Yes, his criticism includes me. But I think it’s important to be detached enough to objectively analyze some of the points he makes, rather than going ballistic on the defensive.
For example, he talks about bloated resumes and a lack of substance in job candidates. I can’t help but agree. We are taught at the Center for Career Education that the key to success in the job market, more-so than actually knowing things, is to be able to “network.” In other words, our time would be better spent insincerely befriending people purely out of self-interest, rather than pursuing something passionately for its intrinsic value.
He talks about inflated grades. As someone near the top of the class, I can say that that is definitely true. And it disincentivizes work. In order to get an A, I don’t have to actually know a lot about a subject, I just have to be slightly less ignorant about it than the others in the class.
He talks about the fact that we exaggerate our level of exertion. Please be honest with yourself: is finals week stressful because our courseload is so demanding, or because we let the work pile up all the way to the end?
Etc. etc. Articles like these should provoke some introspection rather than chest-thumping “fuck yeah class of 2012!” nonsense. THAT is unhelpful.
Thanks for the response. Can you also address the point about your glass-house critique of his one-person sample, and about entitlement?
Yes, his criticism includes me. But I think it’s important to be detached enough to objectively analyze some of the points he makes, rather than going ballistic on the defensive.
For example, he talks about bloated resumes and a lack of substance in job candidates. I can’t help but agree. We are taught at the Center for Career Education that the key to success in the job market, more-so than actually knowing things, is to be able to “network.” In other words, our time would be better spent insincerely befriending people purely out of self-interest, rather than pursuing something passionately for its intrinsic value.
He talks about inflated grades. As someone near the top of the class, I can say that that is definitely true. And it disincentivizes work. In order to get an A, I don’t have to actually know a lot about a subject, I just have to be slightly less ignorant about it than the others in the class.
He talks about the fact that we exaggerate our level of exertion. Please be honest with yourself: is finals week stressful because our courseload is so demanding, or because we let the work pile up all the way to the end?
Etc. etc. Articles like these should provoke some introspection rather than chest-thumping “fuck yeah class of 2012!” nonsense. THAT is unhelpful.
You are not a math/science major
No, I’m not. Fair point.
Since you are (I assume), do you agree with what Stephens says, that the lack of STEM majors is a problem?
yes, in the silver car there was an acmclpoice, but the thieves failed as the sales manager tried his best and grabbed the thief out of the car once it had to stop in front of another car. manager wins)
I believe I did respond to your comment on my “glass house” critique in my last reply. I have also replied, elsewhere in the comments section, about being “ballistic” and “defensive.” My point was that Stephens addresses the piece to “you.” And, if his reader is “me,” I am not the “you” to which he refers. That he says, “This is the way things are!” but the fact that he says so doesn’t have make it true. You don’t have to agree with my point. You don’t have to like my point. But that was it.
I do not know what Stephens would like us to put on our resumés at this point. We have internships and extracurriculars and summer jobs because, for ten months of the year, we’re full time students.
Grade inflation is a whole separate issue. And, if the grades are inflated, the members of the Class of 2012 are not the inflaters.
And finally—I think that students are called upon to be plenty introspective. There are countless articles, many better written, than the one by Bret Stephens, that tell us to be just that. I think—and, you’re right, this is my opinion—that students, and particularly seniors, spend ample time considering their lives, and what they are doing with them, and who they can be with the degrees they have just earned. And I think a little chest-thumping on graduation is a worthy addition to that.
1. No, the glass-house critique was that you criticized him for making a generalization based on an example of one person, and then you went on to do the same, citing your knowledge of languages and post-graduation plans to generalize, that, basically, our class is awesome.
2. “My point was that Stephens addresses the piece to “you.””
No, that was not your original point. Your original point emphasized, “–yourself included–”, suggesting that I should feel as personally offended as you because his article includes me in its generalization.
3. Saying “grade inflation is a separate issue” is a cop-out. Even if it were a separate issue, fine, it’s one that his article addresses, so why didn’t you respond to it? And the fact is, it’s not a separate issue. It’s part of his article’s central theme, which is our sense of entitlement as students–”we” (our parents) pay a lot of money to attend a prestigious school, so we feel we deserve high grades for minimal work. You can say that “the class of 2012 are not the inflaters,” but I haven’t seen any articles in Spec from students that complain about inflation.
3. The fact that he says things doesn’t make them true. Why are you immune from that same criticism?
4. Stephens complains that our class is too self-satisfied, and then you say that we should be thumping our chests. Thanks for proving his point.
Anyway, I appreciate the exchange. Agree to disagree. Enjoy graduation.
ET you must have missed the part in the WSJ article that says we can smell your BS a mile away. You had better take a deep breath through the nose. BTW, the Columbia of today is not the Columbia of 1956 and Eisenhower was a West Pointer, just like the student mentioned in the WSJ article.
What’s your point?
This is so terribly written and reasoned, you actually lent support to Stephen’s position.
Great piece Emily! I couldn’t have said it better.
To those of you sitting around and carrying on conversations in the comments, do something useful with your time…or throw a party. Otherwise you’re the ones who should be worried about having to move back in with mom and dad.
^Hahahaha. Um, Emily is also “sitting around and carrying conversations in the comments.” Many comments, in fact.
So I see how it is. If your comment disagrees with the author, you are “wasting your time.” If your comment agrees with the author, then it’s all good.
Rob, considering you posted at 4:50 am, I think you should follow your own advice.
Its like you learn my thoughts! You aeppar to grasp a lot about this, such as you wrote the guide in it or something. I think that you can do with some % to pressure the message house a little bit, however instead of that, that is excellent blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.VA:F [1.9.13_1145]please wait…VA:F [1.9.13_1145](from 0 votes)
the fact that the response is one of snarky defiance actually proves his point, Emily. if you really had “learned how to think” you first reaction should have been that the underlying message of the original article is rather sage advice. Be humble, agknowledge the fact that you know nothing and take advice from people trying to give it who have more experience than you do. But no, the self-entitled participation trophy generation’s immediate knee jerk reaction is vitriol because the harsh reality that life is a competition and success is not guaranteed is an affront to the self-idolatry that has been funneled into their brains by doting parents, patronizing teachers, and the rest of liberal society from day one.
I feel like a LOT of people missed the fact that while Stephens does generalize about MOST 2012 grads he definitely acknowledges that there are those that his article doesn’t really apply to. “But the best of you don’t do this kind of thing at all. You have an innate sense of modesty. You’re confident that your résumé needs no embellishment. You understand that less is more. In other words, you’re probably capable of thinking for yourself.”
Modesty doesn’t mean self degradation, it merely means truly accepting your strengths and weaknesses. And to be honest our social media driven generation sucks at true modesty. And I feel like this blog and the comments to it pretty much validate that. If we take issue with Stephens’ tone, how is it helpful to reply with the same? I’m amazed at the number of comments to the original article that can basically be summed up with “Shut up old man!” We are a generation that carries an ego built on empty accomplishments. No offense, but even celebration graduation is a bit of an empty accomplishment. If you are going to enroll in further education, shouldn’t the expectation BE that you graduate? Instead we treat it like we’ve done something more important than it is. Getting a degree is not in and of itself an accomplishment.