In last week’s article I talked about the pervasive lack of critical thinking in the undergraduate community. This shortcoming is not limited to the university setting. Educators in all academic levels are aware that there is a shortage of students with an affection for learning. Consequently, they continually try new approaches of administrating education in the hopes that they may raise the standards of academic excellence. Unfortunately, good intentions don’t always translate into good results.In the process of looking for ways to eradicate student apathy, administrators have implemented some rather foolish and potentially harmful educational practices. One of these misguided procedures is known as gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is the practice of restricting educational opportunities to students deemed capable of handling them and academically deserving of them.The original implementation of gatekeeping was valid and reasonable in the context in which it was used. Astoundingly exceptional students whose academic talents dwarfed that of their peers were placed into programs that gave them a chance to proceed at their highly accelerated learning rate. Today, gatekeeping is predominantly used in clubs for good students as opposed to necessary programs for exceptional students.The honors program at OSU is an example of one of these clubs. Its official policy of exclusion through narrow and often questionable criteria (one of my friends was denied membership in part because his application essay was deemed too “flippant”) is difficult to justify. Even reasons for its existence are difficult to account for outside of political self-interest and as a tool for recruitment.I often wonder why the university finds it necessary to furnish labels of distinction for students based on such curious criteria as performance in high school. Isn’t an “honorable” college student self-evident through his or her actions? Do we really need an artificially designed labeling system to point out the obvious? Offer the opportunity to work on a senior thesis to everyone. Those who accept the challenge and do well on it are honorable. Allow anyone to attend special intellectual discussions. Those who show up and actively participate are honorable. Take just about any aspect of the honors program, advertise it to the whole OSU community and observe who participates. Those are your true honor students.I’m the first to admit that life isn’t fair. Status structures and equivalent perks are found everywhere in society. My main objection to the honors program is that it actively corrupts the overall quality of education at OSU. In a nutshell, what the honors program does is establish an artificial level of intellectual involvement that they presume only a few students can achieve and then establish themselves as judges as to who those students are.The honors system is like a cancer on the educational community. Although the individuals within its sphere may thrive, its existence is detrimental to the educational organism as a whole. Without intending to, the honors program has perpetuated the false and damaging myth that only “special” students can engage in higher levels of critical thinking and hold a strong appreciation for learning.Large scale gatekeeping of this sort should be unnecessary in quality universities. The only “honors” program in central Ohio should BE The Ohio State University.”If you treat an individual as he is, he will stay as he is, but if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.” -Goethe
Robert Nekervis’ column appears regularly on Wednesdays. He can be reached at [email protected]
