Success should be measured by more holistic methods

  Chris Diaz Diaz is a second-year
political science and Asian American studies student with a minor
in English. E-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Chris Diaz

In one of my intense class discussions last week, we went around
in a circle explaining our reasoning behind the decision to attend
this college we’ve all grown to love so dearly. Ah yes, UCLA
““ the place “Where Great Futures Begin.”

Although some students provided justifiable reasons such as
family or costs to explain their choice, others were blunt about
their superficial values: they were here for the name, the prestige
and the “success” that a degree from UCLA would give
them.

These people were not interested in the personal growth or any
of the nice-sounding stuff you’re supposed to get out of the
college experience, but more in the BMW or Mercedes-Benz they would
be able to purchase with the high-paying job they’d start
after graduation. They were more intent on using UCLA as a vehicle
of getting the success they truly desired ““ the money and
power ““ rather than using it as a place for growing
holistically as an individual.

I enjoy going to UCLA, but the most irksome thing about
attending this college is observing the type of motivation driving
a large portion of our students. Driven by the desire for a career
with a six-digit paycheck, the mind of your success-hungry
undergraduate doesn’t really question the effect their
actions will have on the less fortunate or the community at
large.

Instead, most of us are motivated by the personal desire for
greater affluence or higher social status. We are fueled by it so
much that we have forgotten about the importance of compassion and
philanthropy. More interested in trying to fulfill some ideal
social mold, we’ve developed comfort zones in which we only
see and care about those things that show a direct, immediate
effect on our world. We don’t necessarily think about the
misfortunes of others and the thing of absolute importance becomes
our own personal success.

  Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin Just take a look
around. Most people are willing to sacrifice a fulfilling
experience here at UCLA because they seriously believe objects such
as letters of recommendation or midterms determine one’s fate
and ultimate success. They neglect everything non-academic because
they believe it won’t assist them in getting where they
really want to be in life. Such people believe that studying for
high grades and kissing up for a great recommendation are the only
things one must do to travel the road of success

And don’t pretend you haven’t noticed.

In about every single class at UCLA, there is at least one
person willing to go out of their her way to talk to the professor
by taking advantage of office hours every single week. They will go
through wind, rain and roaring rivers just so they can get
name-recognition from the person who they feel matters the
most.

These types of students also stalk TAs, arguing with them for
the half-a-grade that makes a world of a difference between the
unacceptable “B plus” and the almighty “A
minus” on the first midterm. They will point out that their
tests were graded wrong and use the example of “one of my
friends got the full credit” to further their cause.

People such as the academically-overachieving robot don’t
really think about how they can plug themselves into a cause that
actually isn’t self-promoting. They neglect philanthropic
efforts, and seem to only care about pushing their own agenda,
mostly because they’ve been inculcated with the notion that
high grades and praise will get them somewhere high in our
hierarchical society.

But, as paradoxical as it sounds, the individual student should
not be entirely to blame for their overwhelming self-interest.
Society’s inability to move past a restricted definition of
what constitutes and ultimately yields success has also played a
role in making us more concerned with our futures than anything
else. Most of our college educational experiences have become
nothing more than a perfunctory process devoid of any holistic
growth because we’ve internalized society’s narrow
perceptions of success and the means of achieving it.

At every step of our K-12 education, we were told that we
wouldn’t be successful if we didn’t work hard enough.
We wouldn’t get to be a doctor or lawyer and we’d end
up working our entire lives at the local fast-food restaurant.

Eventually, numbers such as GPAs or test scores became the sole
means of proving our self worth or merit as an individual on the
road to achievement. The edifying experience from helping out the
community throughout high school or the knowledge gained from
overcoming a traumatic event in life all became subordinated as
secondary representations of achievement to our society.

Just take a look at what our school seeks out when determining
undergraduate admissions. Do they look more for the individual
student’s holistic achievement? Do they value the individual
student’s quantitative measures of academic success more than
the meaningful growth they’ve accomplished given their life
circumstances? What matters more to this social institution: the
numbers standing alone, or the person standing as a whole?

At the University of California, the numbers clearly matter
more. Under our admissions process, 50 to 75 percent of any
entering class, Tier One, is determined solely on the basis of
academic achievement; so called, “individual merit.” To
qualify under this tier, you need to have to prove your academic
achievement with your GPA, SAT/ACT scores, the number of Advanced
Placement courses you’ve taken, etc.

After this tier is filled, the admissions board then looks for
people to fill up 50 to 25 percent of the entering class, Tier Two.
They are admitted on criteria beyond such quantitative measures.
This is when the personal experiences or hardships come into play,
where the individual may be considered as a whole.

Such an admissions process illustrates that our university
““ like most of society ““ doesn’t really view
achievements or success as a holistic concept. Instead it’s
something that has to come in one specific form, primarily
quantitative indicators such as GPAs, test scores, one’s
occupational status or the amount of money they make.

Even though UC President Richard Atkinson has recently announced
his goal to end the consideration of SAT/ACT scores in
undergraduate admissions, our university’s method of
evaluating and rewarding students continues to encourage most of us
into categorizing success as a narrow, quantitative object. When
this occurs, we lose sight of everything else and forget that
fulfillment in life extends beyond high grades or large
paychecks.

As a society, a constraining perception of success should be
avoided. We need to realize that success doesn’t necessarily
mean becoming a CEO for a Fortune 500 company or being a wealthy
neurosurgeon; it comes in many forms and doesn’t always
require us to get high grades or a large paycheck. When it comes
down to it, we need to break away from such a narrow view of
success, and eventually break out of the disillusioning bubbles
created by it.