A Thousand Ways to Add Up to 100

Many Americans appear to be prepared to go on a blind date. Their friends have recommended George W. Bush because he has a bubbly personality, loves his mother and is rumored to sew his own clothes. While journalists question “Dubya’s” gravitas and gray matter, most Americans are ready to treat his high spirits and distaste for books as virtues.

The timing of this surge of anti-intellectual fervor suggests a paradox. Increasingly, Americans are skeptical of “the life of the mind” at a time when most of them are working furiously to get their children into college. Parents, teachers and guidance counselors seek to persuade young adults that a college diploma is a prerequisite for a good job. Politicians abet this effort by suggesting that all Americans are “entitled” to a college education. And many high schools are pushing aside vocational, art and physical education courses to free curricular space for more college preparatory work.

I see the consequences of this “college-ho” attitude at the small liberal arts college where I teach. Although most of my students are intelligent, some of them do not belong in college. They lack the aptitude to perform higher-order mathematics, interpret a poem or a novel, appreciate the sublime genius of the American system of checks and balances or see the applications of chaos theory. These students have talent, but it is not the type of talent that can flourish in a college classroom.

The British mathematician G.H. Hardy once remarked, “If a man has any genuine talent, he should be ready to make almost any sacrifice in order to cultivate it to the full.” I fear that our efforts to herd all of our young people into the abattoir of higher education may prevent many of them from cultivating their genuine talents. My father-in-law was fond of saying, “Every kid adds up to 100, they just add up in different ways.” All of us have encountered children or young adults who were weak academically but possessed an aptitude for auto mechanics or graphic design or coaching sports or cooking or carpentry or drawing cartoons or playing the violin. These kids add up to 100 as readily as any National Merit Scholar.

One of the features of charter schools that attracts the least attention is their potential for helping differently gifted students develop their talents. Politicians usually characterize charter schools as competitors with public schools. But charter schools also can complement public schools by offering enriched programs in art and vocational training that many public schools are jettisoning. My uncle, for example, is a high school administrator in Northern California who has just received approval to start a charter school devoted to the fine arts. In addition to providing a rich array of offerings in the fine arts, the school will interweave artistic materials and activities into standard academic courses. Other charter schools could use this interdisciplinary approach to serve students with specialized talents in the vocational arts. Such schools would become havens for gifted students who lack the aptitude for academic course work.

Charter schools are not a panacea for what ails both secondary and higher education. It is indisputable that people with college educations earn higher incomes than people who have only high school diplomas. It is difficult to explain to members of groups who have been victims of discrimination that some of their children must be content with “vo-tech” while other students enjoy dorm life at some ivy-draped institution.

I am convinced, however, that we cannot claim to have made real social progress until we can see every child as a gifted person whose talents add up to 100 in his or her own idiosyncratic way. While we celebrate our cultural diversity, it would be encouraging if we could celebrate with equal enthusiasm our young people’s diversity of talent.