1 Martin Andrew Martin Pledge: Thoughts on The Organization Kid David Brooks mischaracterized the nature of modern college students. He paints a picture of the modern student as a hard-working, over-achieving youth, too busy to discuss ideas, to have friendships, or to have relationships. This simply is not true. Brooks misinterprets modern college culture and chose a poor sample group to represent a generation. He criticizes the modern generation for being overly studious and for not protesting authority, which are neither true in the general population nor are they reasons for scorn. He fails to realize his theories on college culture are untrue, but also fails to see that if they were, my generation is doing exactly what he preaches: asserting themselves in their own way. For most of the article, Brooks too broadly applies his ideas to college students, which was the main focus of his article. Brooks' characterizes the modern college student as being too busy to maintain friendships without making appointments, too busy to be concerned with politics and the news, too busy to have actual discussion, and differing to authority with glee. This may apply to the students at Princeton and a few other elite universities, but Brooks tries to generalize this anecdotal evidence to a broader audience. As a student at Allegheny College, I can say that I frequently eat with no less than 3 of my close friends, I get no less than seven hours of sleep each night, and I discuss for hours with my compatriots. Dinner usually involves prolonged discussion, and usually ends with
Martin 2 the group occupying our table for twenty to thirty minutes after the last of our group is finished with his meal. Dinner is often followed by the group continuing the discussion on the return to our residence halls and, permitting, weather we engage in another hour or so of conversation over hookah. I also read the New York Times daily. Despite Brooks' continued assertions that he wrote the article about Princeton, and the section on character relating entirelyto Princeton, Brooks comes of as trying to represent the current generation of college students. Brooks also criticizes students for not protesting as many students in the 1960's did. He states that the currentstudents "vaguely know they are supposed to feel guilty about not marching in the street for some cause. But they don't seem to feel guilty." Brooks suggests that no students protest and that we should feel guilty about it. I personally have protested in the streets, but I recognized that not everyone protests in the same ways. Brooks is presumptuous to think that marching in the streets is the only form of protest or showing concern for a cause. I've seen students around campus raising money for research for all sorts of diseases, to stop genocide in Darfur, to attempt to slow global warming, and innumerable other causes. It is that level of participation, which Brooks seems to dislike, that gives the current generation an outlet to make social changes. David Brooks occasionally has some insightful commentary, but for the most part misinterprets a generation. His anecdotal evidence, however, was gathered from the wrong place Princeton hardly represents the average American and Brooks incorrectly interprets the stories he collects. He continually compares the
Martin 3 current generation to that of the 1960's, and states that we're too busy and not rebellious like previous generations, but fails to recognized that, even if his theories about us as students were true, we are rebelling in a more modern, refined way our own way.