Cathy Davidson Project Classroom Makeover Summary

Smartness Requires Thinking Multiply Instead of Being the Same

Individuals who share similar characteristics, whether they are intelligent in a specific expertise or not, can be categorized as the “same.” In this case, a group with similar schooling and knowledge would be considered the same, meeting typical expectations in thought and performance. Often, organizations are looking for a “same-like” quality in their recruits. In doing so, looking for the “right fit” becomes more important than looking for the right thinker.

In “Project Classroom Makeover,” Cathy Davidson criticizes the sameness that is caused by credentialing and emphasizes the importance of learning through diversity and difference of thought. She claims that multiple thinking

benefits individuals to learn more, think deeper, and have multiple understandings. Similarly, Karen Ho also talks about the powerful, however negative, influence that credentialing can have in “Biographies of Hegemony.” She asserts that “Wall Street smartness” is an inefficient and incorrect way of evaluation since a credential does not guarantee a person’s true abilities and skills. Their “generic” characteristic makes them much like the same and average like the others, which weakens their smartness. Assigning individuals into categories is an effortless act that could result in overlooking valuable traits and thinking skills of a particular individual, The dilemma occurs when a qualified, credentialed person fails at a job and a non-credentialed person who is a diverse thinker and learner is successful (and more qualified) because of his ability to think multiply.
It is an incomplete view to use one category to value all individuals and ignore exceptions.

Individuals feel safe when they can use categories in their personal and professional life to sort out all the people they come in contact with on a daily basis, whether personal or professional. This idea of putting someone into a category makes it easier to navigate through work, school, and other common obligations. We may do this indiscreetly, and we know it’s not the best way to judge others, but we do it anyway. However, if a person matches with one standard, then he will be attributed to a specific category without a clear consideration. This applies to the “Wall Street smartness” that Ho mentions and criticizes. She finds that the Ivy League degree is the only standard for smartness on Wall Street. She argues, “Wall Street smartness is, in a sense, ‘generic’ and it is precisely this notion of elitism so pervasive as to be commonplace, smartness so sweeping as to become generic, that reinforces Wall Street’s claims of extraordinariness” (184 Ho). On Wall Street, smart people all have one similarity, which is an Ivy League degree. In other words, if someone who does not have a degree from a prestigious university, he or she is probably not qualified to be labeled smart on Wall Street. It may be a true statement, since Ivy League schools do offer a high quality education; however, there are always exceptions. There are college graduates who have attended reputable and

successful colleges or universities, but did not possess a high GPA, nor did they study a wider range of subjects, This one dimensional, highly intelligent graduate from a reputable college may not exhibit the depth and breadth of knowledge that a multiple thinker would have.
Since life is complicated with constant change, a single, unchanged category could harm others by ignoring the value and experience of individuality (i.e. college graduate vs. non-graduate). In current society, credentialing is still important since seeking employment is generally competitive. However, it should not be the only category used for recruiting new hires.
Credentialing only proves what skills and knowledge students should have earned from a post-secondary institution; yet, it cannot promise that everyone who gets this degree has the same abilities and smartness. Ho criticizes this recruitment method that focuses too much on credentials instead of candidates’ real abilities, and thinks it is not the right way to choose the most capable employee. She points out, “being the best and the brightest, especially for college graduates, does not mean possessing actual technical skills, a background in finance, or even a specific aptitude for banking. Instead, Princeton and Harvard recruits bring to the table just the right mix of general qualities and associations” (186 Ho).
Wall Street people believe that an official credential is the best evidence to prove a person’s ability and intelligence.

However, a school’s academic fame does not directly prove that all of their students are talented and prepared because how much they absorb, understand and are able to utilize their new knowledge is hard to measure. Credentialing can be a stepping-stone to success, but it should not be the decisive factor. If a recruiter only considers a credential, he or she may be able to hire smart people from a proven university, but will definitely miss other qualified potential employees who have excellent experience and skills but no Ivy League degree. College is a pre-practice school for society, giving students the opportunity to study how society works in order to make a smooth transition from college to “the real world.” Unfortunately, what real employment environments need is not always what colleges focus on. Davidson is concerned about the perception colleges have about credentialing, versus what real-life work experience needs. She claims, “We were inverting the traditional roles of teacher and learner, the fundamental principle in education: hierarchy based on credentials. The authority principle, based on top-down expertise, is the foundation of formal education” (50 Davidson). The concern remains that credentialing becomes highly revered as the inviolable authority in education, which everyone follows without reservation. Professors with high educational

credentials automatically fit into the smart and credible category in top-level academia. After all, what credentialed experts say is absolute truth because they have the academic credential that their students do not have. On the other hand, because the world is not made up of true absolutes, professors and experts can sometimes get it wrong, and students may question and overturn what they say. If students never look beyond the credential of the professor, they may fall into a trap of believing whatever their professor says, even though the information may be wrong, or worse, biased. In this case, students merely accept the information and never consider new ideas or other insights. If they think more multiply, they will find that static information does not work in a dynamic society.
Thinking in multiple ways helps individuals gain confidence, while making classroom learning meaningful. Conversely, being “the same” is less valuable since students accept being fed information from a credentialed professor from a credentialed college. One reason why some people are successful and meaningful in society and the world is that their ideas or opinions are unique and creative. A multiple thinker has the ability to create outstanding and innovative products or outcomes that surprise and inspire others. Many perspectives, coupled with multiple thinking, can lead to great inventions, ideas, and actions. In her article, “Wall Street Smartness,” Ho indicates that “the assumption is that everyone on Wall Street is smart and comes from Princeton and Harvard; as such, this smartness generically applies to all members of this class or kind in a way that is naturalized and comprehensively descriptive of this entire group of workers” (184 Ho). If everyone is smart at the same level and attempts to fit into a certain category, then their smartness will be devalued. They are now credentialed and believe they are smart, so they think that if people are credentialed, they are also smart. Wall Street people can certainly be close-minded when looking for candidates to “join their club.” They put it into a simple and one-dimensional mathematical equation: If you are credentialed, you are smart. Life is more complicated than that.
Being “the same” means you are nothing special, people can replace you at any time, since everyone else can do what you are able to do and think what you able to think. More importantly, if every member is the same in a group or an organization, then they all look from the same angle. Therefore, they are unable to imagine the “big picture” with all the possibilities, risks, weaknesses and challenges. The institution cannot fully succeed or improve because they are limited to their small world of “sameness,” with all members merely meeting expectations instead of creating uniqueness. Davidson believes that multiple thinking is essential and solves this problem. She claims, “learning to think in multiple ways, with multiple partners, with a dexterity that cannot be computerized or outsourced, is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Given the altered shape of global labor, the seemingly daring iPod experiment turns out actually to be, in the long run, a highly pragmatic educational model (60-61 Davidson). Thinking in multiple ways and with multiple people help individuals to catch a large picture of the issue because they can organize all the opinions and ideas from diverse angles and rethink the issue more objectively. The “Wall Street smartness” is just an excuse for people to irresponsibly hire someone who is the same as them, without conducting a serious evaluation. The real smartness is to never be the same and to always be thinking more comprehensively, creatively and profoundly than others.
Although using categories to define others benefits our conversation, and it is pretty normal, yet it sometimes triggers risks and misunderstandings in life. Attributing individuals to certain categories without careful thinking is irresponsible and not respectful to the person you are categorizing. It also limits one’s opportunity to experience diversity. Information and attitudes are changing all the time; someone may fit in a specific category now, but it does not mean he or she will fit forever. Individuals must rethink to gain multiple ways in which to view others. Multiple thinking not only helps individuals have a better and clearer understanding of others and the world, but also adds intelligence and uniqueness, including learning about the diversity in others. This kind of information intelligence cannot be replaced and is more valuable in many cases than an Ivy League degree.