Preppies

The term "prep" was originally used to describe prep school students. Later, it was used to describe a rich, good-looking and well-connected student - the type of student who is destined to become a leader in his or her chosen field. At school or university preppies are usually part of the "popular crowd" - that group of students who dominate and lead.

Preppy names usually have numbers after them or end in "junior". Others have a Dutch sounding surname, which is considered special as many of the founding fathers of America were of Dutch descent (New York was originally called New Amsterdam). Here are a few typical preppy names: Brent Worthington III, William Xavier Jr. and Muffy Vanderbilt.

Preppies generally wear designer clothes, particularly Polo or Lacoste. Preppy boys wear khakis and loafers, and preppy girls often have tennis skirts and brand-name sweaters. Some other typical preppy brand-names include Izod, Bass and Abercrombie & Fitch. Dressing preppy shows that you are on your way to becoming suc­cessful. These clothes serve as upper middle-class status sym­bols. Older preps may also be seen wearing a Republican Party political pin.

Most preppies want to become the C.E.O. of a multi-national, tril­lion-dollar corporation by the time they're 29. Some want to take over the world, and others want to be president of the United States.

Preppies are not into any particular type of music and will generally listen to all sorts. However, preppies would never listen to rap, country music or heavy metal.

Preppies drive around in the most expensive or fashionable cars such as BMW's, Mercedes or any other car that shows others how suc­cessful they are. When preppy teenagers get straight A's in school or become Class Presi­dent, their parents usually reward them with a car.

Preppies are extremely self-confident and money-motivated. They like the sound of their own voice, and love to be with rich, powerful people. They are usually overly friendly, which many consider fake.

Preppies are constantly thinking of ways they can become rich and successful. In college, they were probably the student president, president of a fraternity or captain of a sports team or president of the debating club. Older preppies can be found running suc­cessful businesses. On the weekends most preppies can be found at the country club, where they play tennis, golf or just schmooze with people who may be useful in the future.

George Bush is a typical preppy a rich, success­ful businessman who is now in politics. The ac­tor Michael J. Fox has played lots of preppies in his films, as has the actor Ri­chard Norton, who was an ar­chetypal preppy in the film "Everyone Says I Love You" by Woody Allen.

School, Knowledge and Responsibility

The state system in this country is catastrophically un­balanced. The flesh of stability is gone and the bones of its inner structures are sticking out. The vast majority of com­mon problematic questions seem extraordinary acute. Among them, we can observe one of the Big Three perennial prob­lems that have ever worried philosophical minds - the ques­tion of education, and the school question in particular (the other two are state structure and interaction between exist­ence and consciousness). Though the modern school sector in the sphere of education is still referred to as a 'system', I very much doubt the rightness of the term. What we call 'system' is on the brink of collapse. Anyhow this is beyond the scope of my article. What interests me more is the role of schools among the various social institutions.

I won't be far from the truth if I picture the institution of schools as a major one. In this case schools are viewed upon as a place for massive 'initiation' or rather, using the accepted terminology 'socialization' of the youth. The word 'massive' here lacks any negative implication and points that socialization is the rite for everyone to come through..

Man is not innately society-oriented, though he undoubt­edly possesses some group instincts. However man is apt to achieve the top of his best abilities living in society. This dual phenomenon can be easily explained: a person left all by him­self has to climb the mountain of knowledge and experience from the very foot, while a person kindly delivered by society is halfway to its top (which one can hardly see even from there) and can use most of the information that society has accumulated.

I first conceive school to be that invisible hand shifting people from the described foot to the point where their individual path starts. In its second function, school has to pre­pare its charges for interaction among people, to impart knowl­edge of the social mechanisms together with purely scientific knowledge - in other words to socialize them; this role can't be underestimated. However, the recent arguments about schools sometimes go as far as to ask (using an allusion): to school or not to school?

Another problem that captured my attention was the prob­lem of responsibility for academic success. As a student, a teacher and a daughter of parents whose attitude towards my achievements can be justly characterized as strict, I worked out the following view on the topic.

My conclusion is that while both the parents and the school teachers are responsible for a child's academic suc­cess, the child must share the responsibility as well.

The teachers are in charge of the knowledge and skills they supply their pupils with. They should consider ways of presenting material for studying so that the children may un­derstand and master it easily. Their duty is also to create an effective, progressive atmosphere in class, to combine indi­vidual approach with group methods of working. Teaching must be professional. That is, it must rest on a psychological basis. Far be it from me to deny a certain effectiveness and convenience of electronic teaching. Yet, I hold dear the old concept of man-to-man teaching and believe that human con­tact is somewhat more than a mechanical exchange of infor­mation.

The teachers aren't possibly able to keep an equally watch­ful eye on each pupil, even if they are personally involved. That is where the parent's work starts. Parents have the right to expect something of their children or to cherish ambitions for their future life. They are the first to multiply their child's intelligence, as it is up to them to raise intelligent children. I claim that any child is born with a capacity for learning. How­ever individually diverse, this capacity is an organized princi­ple of human thinking. Curiosity acts as a propulsion of thirst for knowledge like an instinct for self-preservation determines the length of our physical life. But for children this natural law may seem abstract. That is why a parent must never get tired or bored of pushing his child towards knowledge. Parents are well aware of their influence over their child, so it won't be too hard a task for them to provide their kids with stimuli and show probable perspectives the kids could aim at. Any child values knowledge through valuing his parents and teachers' efforts to display the wonders of the world around him. The parents can either start all schooling again together with their child or rely upon the teachers' efficiency as well as the child's sensibility. Either way, children must be accustomed to study­ing from the beginning. This will give them a sense of joy in learning more as they grow older. In my mind, teachers should be treated as specialists in some sphere, and parents should know that they are real enthusiasts.

Through out all human history, we have been walking up the mountain of cognition, proving the existence of the knowl­edge phenomenon. Man is naturally attracted to knowledge. I suppose I'm not alone in this belief. One who tries the fruit of knowledge is eager to enter the garden. Professing Ba­con's "knowledge is power" can be considered vice versa: "power is knowledge". Man has always strived for power, he can get it by obtaining knowledge. This is no secret.

(By Iana Toropova, MPU 4th year student.)

TOPIC