I have been thinking about this post for a while. It is an attempt to explain a general trend I think I see and find flawed. I call it educational impatience.
This problem is reflected is such issues as taking college credits in high school and an early focus on occupation. I believe breadth before depth is far more practical. Yes – I said practical. If there is a trendy thing you require, I would suggest it is the “gap year”. Speeding up things that take time to develop has many negative consequences.
If you prefer to read a different interpretation with a similar conclusion, I suggest this recent post from the Washington Post.
I support of my reaction I offer two observations.
1. Students seldom have the background to make career choices when they begin college. Most students do not have enough life experience to know their particular aptitudes and passions.
A personal reflection – I started my education wanting to be a high school biology teacher and coach of some yet to be determined type. Looking back this was a product of the only world I knew. No matter how sophisticated you think your kid is this is still likely true of him/her as well.
Who goes to college to become a psychologist? I didn’t. I still remember explaining to my parents that I wanted to declare a psychology major. We made a deal. I would continue my biology major, add a psychology major, get a teaching certificate, and they would pay for summer school. I loved it. The combination ended up providing great long-term opportunities. Who knew there were psychologists who studied the application of cognitive theory to learning and became competent computer programmers in order to investigate adaptive learning techniques? Who knew that students and college professors would have computers of their own? The computer science I could have studied was completely irrelevant and often still is.
I spent much of academic career as an administrator. As department chair, I followed the numbers and the numbers told me a lot. The number of psychology majors grew drastically from the freshman to senior year. Why? There were many factors. First, like I said few go to college to become a psychologist. Few understand the diversity of field beyond the strange understanding of what psychologists do. Most take a course or two as a requirement for many other majors and find they like the topics more than they like the topics of what they thought they wanted to study. Second, many were unrealistic about what they thought they were going to be able to do. Their preparation to the point of entering college had not offered realistic insight into their aptitude for various things. They thought they wanted to be a physician, but found they did not really like or could not handle physics, calculus, or organic chemistry.
The data are clear on one thing. More students change majors than retain their first major. Some of these changes are to a similar field, but clearly the original plan is often rejected. I still think the “freshman college” option makes a lot of sense. Take the basics and explore for a while first. The “wasted credits” some students accumulate and parents complain about because of the cost are likely the credits specific to a specific major. Maybe wasted is the wrong word – finding you are not interested in something early is a good thing.
2. Accepting stages of development
I used to teach James Marcia’s theory of ego identity (a brief Wikipedia explanation). The theory proposed two processes – crisis and commitment – that resulted in various “stages” of the development of the ego. Commitment is what is sounds like – investment in certain beliefs, values, etc. Crisis does not sound like what it means. Crisis implied a personal, careful consideration of various beliefs, values, etc.
The four stages of ego identity resulted from various combinations of crisis and commitment. Strange as it might seem it is possible to be classified as a combination of commitment without crisis. This stage (called foreclosure) results from a tendency toward commitment without crisis. I used to explain this reality using religion (probably the only time I talked about religion in class). Some make a commitment to a specific set of religious beliefs because this is what they have always known and are told this is what is essential to accept. You might see how something similar would happen with vocation.
This theory has resulted in some interesting applied research. Using a methodology requiring students to explain their positions of multiple issues, students are classified into a stage and then other factors are related to this classification. What life factors make it more likely someone is classified in one stage vs another. What does being in a specific stage at a given point in time predict about the future. Researchers in college personnel fields (e.g., career counseling, advisement, student retention) used such methodologies to investigate student behaviors related to their fields.
In general, being foreclosed is not a good thing. It tends to be associated with self-doubt, resentment, leaving school, etc.
One interesting area of study has concerned the relationship between identity status and the reaction to life set backs (think divorce, losing a long held job, finding out you are not going to get into ned school). The popularized term “grit” might be a way to translate some of the findings. Grit might be described as weak when identity has been foreclosed. Accepting the priorities of others rather than exploring and making personal commitments to priorities of your own is not a good thing.
Patience grasshopper.
