Elitist Idealists

It is common cause that not everybody at the Oliver Schreiner Law School will get 'straight As', as it were, or graduate cum laude. Furthermore, not every law student will achieve 'Deans merit list' or 'Golden Key' status. It follows that we are not equal in intellectual capability. At first year level every 'witsie' starts on an equal footing and in hindsight one can say that it is perhaps better to remain naive, juvenile and 'equal' because when one starts earning some credilbility the demarcation begins.

This is the inconspicuous division of the class or calibre of law students within the law school. It is as if some imaginary authority waits at the entrance with a stick with which he separates the long file of students.  The brillaint bunch is separated from the 'struggling bunch' and from this moment each of the two factions' career paths are effectively set out. The latter is likely to struggle to find suitable employment at the end of his or her time at the university, while the former will have tea and scones in a lavish office in Sandton. One cannot argue either of their cases on the ground of 'who is more deserving' because it is an embarassingly flimsy basis to use. Notwithstanding the fact that hard work fosters a just reward, many have quadrupled their efforts and still they have come second best against the brillaint bunch. Does this mean that they are less deserving of the same, or at least some of the benefits that the brillaint bunch receives?

For instance, if we were both painters that worked independently and you could paint a masterpiece in a fraction of the time that I would use to paint something that is average, would it be fair or reasonable to conclude that you were more deserving of any accolades or benefits that acrue to outstanding painters? Put differently, it is a question of effort versus natural ability.

My intention is not to cast aspersions but what is unacceptably irritating is when someone from the 'brilliant bunch' adamantly and vehemently argues that if he or she can achieve, inter alia, good marks then anybody else can do the same. One cannot adversely criticize the intention behind this. That is, to encourage people to perform better by placing oneself in a position of inferiority in their minds thereby creating the belief that 'if he or she can do it then so can I'.

However, it cannot be correct to apply the 'one-size-fits-all' approach in this particular instance because the process of achieving good grades is a very complex one mainly because people are so different and this is partly proven by the fact that one may work three times as hard on something and not receive the same grade as somebody who started and completed the particular task in a matter of hours. Therefore, the patronising assertion that attempts to equate the 'struggling bunch' with the 'brilliant bunch' by one saying that 'If I can do it, then so can you' is most unaccptable.


 Frank Talk