await the rise of the resume-builders

this article from the british medical journal sent to me by a friend is pretty scary/interesting. the search for sincerity becomes increasingly more complicated as our society beecomes increasingly more achievement-obsessed.

. . .

My friend's 12 year old son wanted to give up music lessons. Sure, said his dad, but tell me why. Didn't he like the teacher? Was there too much pressure? Had he stopped enjoying the violin? "Dad," replied the child, "I never liked music, but I reckon I'm good enough now to put it on my CV."

Last month, I attended a school concert and heard a 17 year old play a concerto by Liszt. He played by ear—faultlessly and passionately. The young man's face was contorted with concentration; his forehead dripped sweat. In the tough allegro section he bit his lip so hard I thought it might bleed.

Profoundly talented as he undoubtedly was, this level of performance was the result of years of practice and, I mused, considerable self sacrifice in the face of the usual adolescent temptations. But it was more than that. The boy played the piano for the sheer love of it. After his ovation, he had gently closed the piano lid, unfolded a handkerchief, and discreetly wiped tears from his eyes.

I recently helped interview a group of 17 year old hopefuls who were applying to do medicine. Their personal statements were uniformly perfect. As well as the expected row of A grades at GCSE, every one of them boasted excellence in at least three of the Big Four: music, sport, drama, and community service.

They had all done their homework—identifying the subconscious benchmarks that ageing professors use when evaluating the achievements of the young, and ensuring that they scored above the line. I asked one multitalented individual what she had got out of playing in an orchestra. Her measured reply—that the experience had taught her teamwork and commitment, and had provided balance in her timetable while taking five science A levels—gained her top marks on our assessment sheet.

We are now admitting cohorts of medical students who, like my friend's son, have been constructing their CVs since the age of 9. With a few radiant exceptions, their very identities are a pastiche of academic and personal achievements, carefully constructed for viewers like you and me. Surely we owe it to our children to change the system that is requiring them to become so hollow?- Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary health care, University College London

margaret wente: wrong again

ahhh, margaret wente. such a clever writer but so prone to constructing paper dragons out of complex arguments only so that she can decimate them easily. it must be so dissatisfying though to 'win' an argument but then know that you really haven't met it head on- that you've surreptiously curved beyond the battle to some sort of 'home free' zone where intellectual honesty isn't required.

her argument isn't an unimportant one: that we're being too hard on the american occupation of iraq; that it would have been moronic to turn the prisons over tot he iraqis after occupation and that if we continue to be this harsh on the americans, no one will ever want to intervene for humanitarian purposes. fair enough but her assumptions make much her poingnancy turn to fluff.

to buy her argument, we have to accept her assumption that the us entered this war on the ground of 'humanitarian intervention'. at the end of her column she likens this to another rwanda. the irony, of course, is that the us did nothing for rwanda. so, this raises the question: why iraq? that we should judge the us as some sort of humanitarian saints who have entered this war only for the good of the iraqi people is not an easy pill to swallow.

next on my hit list is wente's claim that we're being too harsh on america- that because they've spent $87 million and been willing to take the lead, they should be protected somehow from any generalised criticism. this is ridiculous. if the iraqi regime was overthrown in the pursuit of calmer, gentler ends then we must hold the us occupation to the same standards. even more problematic, however, is that this is an 'occupation' which places a whole new spin on how judgemental i think we're allowed to be. this was not simply an outster but a takeover and therefore the us military, effectively the new iraqi government, needs to be criticised in the same way that you can blame the canadian government when a doctor treats you badly at a hospital they pay for. if this was simply a bit of assistance to remove an ugly government hanging on too long, the us might escape criticism for simply being the messenger. however, with haliburton on the payroll and america in control, the us better be ready to face criticism for their rule of post-war iraq.

wente's call to thanks for the us ends with this plea that if we make occupation difficult, no one will want to do it. the reality is that occupation/liberation/humanitarian intervention is complex and if criticism is going to stop the strong believers in human rights, then i worry about how committed they truly are to the concept...

. . .