It is well-known that when you work really hard to achieve or gain something, whether that be knowledge, money, prestige or position, you tend to appreciate and value your accomplishments more-so than if it had just been given to you. Such is the case when we consider knowledge and education. In many cases, students who graduate college with a bachelors in a specific subject don’t even end up securing a job related to their studies. This might not be the only reason, but my a posteriori rationalization of today’s students would make the internet a likely culprit.
Although in the past I have also been guilty of this, I try now to thoroughly complete any and all readings assigned. When an article is assigned, how many students do you think actually read the entire thing? Or say, for instance, a professor assigns an entire novel in only one week. Will students actually read an entire novel, which could take up to 5, 10, or even 20 hours of reading? Of course, the stalwart students who recognize the need to be scholastically prudent in order to ensure a successful future will thoroughly read a given text, but the majority of students, I assure you, will not. That is exactly why sparknotes, gradesaver, etc., are filled with advertisements. They know that the majority of students simply look for the shortcut and are going to go on their websites for the answers. In the case of not wanting to read an article, one need only type in the name of an article on google, and on many occasions google will automatically fill in what it “thinks” you are going to type. It will fill in words like “summary”, “analysis”, “meaning”, which means that these are common–popular–searches. If you read the article on your own, there is no need for a summary. By reading the article using your own intellectual power, you can supplant googles pestiferous apparatus through your own analysis with which you may conclude your own meaning; thus rendering google no longer requisite mechanism as it has putatively been.
The article above basically states that you cannot rely on the internet too much. It says that the internet must be used in moderation or can otherwise create inactivity and stupidity. Drawing from some conclusions made in the article, I would say that students do not get what they should from a college education, and the internet has a lot to do with it. In the article, Jack London states, “In most cases we will search up an answer to our questions, read halfway through the article, and then never apply what we learned. Now if you had to spend hours and hours of your time at the local library searching for the answers to those questions, would you be more likely to use what you have learned?” He basically means that you need to work incessantly to advance your knowledge. Moreover, if you look for shortcuts, you’ll find them, but just like in the original Pokemon, when you cheat by using the “rare-candies” to increase the level of your Pokemon, the little creatures’ stats don’t increase at a normal rate. In fact, you’ll find that they are worse off in the end than if you had played the game according to the rules. Today, in the real world, there are no such rules or objective guidelines explaining the proper way towards the best education, and the internet does seem like a great medium for quick and easy information; however, I guarantee you that doing so will make retention improbable. I think Mr. London’s point is that if you don’t work really hard to gain information, you probably wont be that interested in it, which will, in turn, precipitate an involuntary abandonment of that easily-acquired knowledge; thereafter, you will be left with nothing but a degree, perhaps some trivial knowledge, and no potential for any noteworthy success.