I would like to say first and foremost that I have goodwill towards all men and that I feel the possession of such will is the measure of a man’s virtue. But what comes with such virtue is a moral and emotional courage to discuss difficult and complicated issues, with the hopes that the lives of families and nations might improve. One of these difficult issues is education policy and its effects on families, individuals and businesses.

The United States has a proud tradition of public education, and was one of the first nations on Earth to democratize the college and the university. Furthermore, its large tax base allows us to support and finance various educational endeavors. Such measures are of course in my mind on the whole good, but it is undeniable that there exist problems, incongruencies and pressures in American education at every level, and all of which serve as institutional barriers that prevent some students (however small their numbers may be) from operating at their intellectual potential.           

For better or worse, such barriers and traps are rare and therefore difficult to analyze easily. But, again for better or worse, some problems are beginning to grow more acute and therefore attract the attention of the press.           

What seems to be receiving the bulk of the gathering attention is the college dropout in the United States. I am not a statistician and have no inclinations to become one, but I have heard several times that between 50 and 66% of college students will not receive a Bachelor’s degree within six years of their initial enrollment.           

Now college dropouts are a good problem to have, especially compared to their high school counterparts, but such numbers are nonetheless startling and far too large to ignore. Blame for such problems has been vented at a number of sources, including poor high school preparation, insufficient market incentives, and open admissions policies. Each of these are factors are worth analyzing, as better primary education in mathematics and natural sciences, and greater flexibility and accountability in the entire education system certainly seem to be in order. However, be these problems as they may, I feel there are some other very real variables worth taking into account.            

For starters, students are not interchangeable parts. Two students of equal intelligence and opportunity will not utilize either in the same way, and for very legitimate reasons. The world is a complex place, and family dynamics, financial pressures, and the like are eternal constants. To illustrate my point I would like to examine the demographic groups that fail most often and the subjects in which the greatest F’s are awarded.           

There is great to-do in this country over traditional and non-traditional students, with the traditionals being defined as those enrolled in college under say—25 years of age. Non-traditionals would be those “going back to school” or younger students with unusual circumstances, like a young wife, or family and medical problems acute enough to warrant attention.           

In any case, the non-traditionals are most likely to fail from a statistical perspective. Furthermore, the more non-traditional one gets, the less likely he or she is to major in certain subjects. The continuum, after all is continuous, and a wealthy suburban student is more traditional than a wealthy suburban student with family problems, and so on down the line. However, I find it unfortunate that analysts of educational outcomes are content to identify such realities and then move on. To identify a phenomenon is one thing, but to attempt to change it we must understand not only the what, but the why.            Unfortunately, the reasons for the statistical under-achievement of non-traditionals is often taken as self-evident and obvious, but I feel they are anything but. Let us continue on in hopes that I can clarify my position.           

 Take for example an 18-year old freshman enrolled at Indiana University’s Bloomington campus. One initially often-ignored fact implied by this is that the student is most likely somewhere they do not live nor have ever lived before. For many this can be exciting and enjoyable adventure, but for the student unsure of his path in life, or for the student facing other difficulties, this can be a momentous obstacle indeed.           

For example, to get from campus to home requires a car and insurance, which implies payments on both. For the cast of Save by The Bell, such supports from their family are a given, but the reality is far different. Furthermore, such things as prescription costs, and the location of physician, dentist, and therapists in a student’s hometown can be time-consuming and costly trips necessary on a regular basis.           

Another often-ignored source of stress is campus housing. Again, for the cast of Save by the Bell dormitory arrangements are a stimulating adventure. But it is in my mind fallacious to assume a 19-year old from a poverty-stricken neighborhood would enjoy living in noisy, chaotic and in many cases unsanitary, conditions. If one has lived rough in childhood, he or she is eager for anything but, meaning dorm life is experienced differently by different people.           

 I hope my point is becoming clearer, and that my examples appear analogous to other ones that could be constructed in relation to financial aid applications, scheduling and overall campus participation—it is important to remember the toll that financial or emotional stress can have on someone’s social and intellectual energies.           

 But we have only examined half of the story. The other perhaps more important half deals with the issues at the core of the university’s mission—education. Great accolades are awarded our educational institutions for the opportunities they provide. But if advanced liberal and professional education is available for all, and yet much of the same class-based achievement outcomes are seen anyway, then we have not accomplished our goal.Unfortunately, the knee-jerk liberal response to all this is to provide more funding, campus tutors, etc. for the low-income or non-traditional student. Such recommendations are not wholly out of place and sync, but there is as always more to the story.

My peers and I do it every August and January—we look around, making wagers in our head about who will be left in a given class (or even still enrolled at the university) by the end of the semester. Such exercises are cruel but common to nearly every student I’ve encountered—what is interesting is not that such internal bets are made, but how accurate students often are in predicting such things. Such accuracy implies to me that there are signs and indices that can determine with a fair degree of certainty the odds on such speculations.

Unlike social scientists, university students cannot encounter someone and immediately deduce their age, family situation, economic background etc. However, there are other things they can surmise very quickly. For example, a disheveled and distressed appearance is a dead giveaway. Lackluster attendance, a low level of participation, and the purchasing of different books than those used in the class are equally telling. I think that the universal “struggling student” is becoming visualized—often working a minimum wage job, unsure of their major or if they should be in college at all, they float from department to department and class to class, unable to gain significant traction in their studies. What is interesting is not that this image is so universal, but that if often transcends the usual measure of the “traditionalness” of a student.With all of this in mind I have come to the conclusion that the best measure of a student’s likelihood of academic success is not money nor stress—and certainly not talent (the “smart quiet boy” who floats through class is a quickly crystallizing cliché). No, the greatest predictor of a student’s success is will.

So as not to alarm the reader that he has not misstepped into a Schopenhauer treatise or a fascist propaganda film, I will explain myself.Will in the sense I am using it can best be understood as certainty—certainty of one’s abilities, mission and purpose.

Unfortunately, most “tweeners” are rarely certain about anything. However, the one’s that are often come from stable, value-minded homes that impart a disciplined and businesslike outlook on their children.And thus we see where the class-skewed outcomes originate. It is not that wealthy students universally do well, it is that the students most likely to do well come from prosperous homes; prosperity, after all, most often comes from the virtues I just described.

Furthermore, such a hypothesis explains why many students from lower income brackets can and do out-perform their middle-class peers: one can be poor and undisciplined or rich and undisciplined, but this vital characteristic is what determine academic success.And so we see that it is not “racist math” or “Euro-centric curricula” that leads to race or class-biased outcomes (although such biased curricula may indeed exist—I happen to feel that it does not, but you never know). We also see why those socio-economic trends cut through both achievement and selection of major. The panic faced by many students in introductory biology, mathematics or engineering courses does not stem from a lack or perception of lack of ability (although such feelings and factors may be present), but from uncertainty.

No man, woman or child can tackle complex academic subjects in a haphazard, uncertain or undisciplined manner. The more complex the material, the more the habits of the mind determine its understanding. And so when a student with loads of debt, a pregnant girlfriend or a sick father flounders in these courses, it is more because he doubts whether he should be in such classes to begin with. It is not so much “Am I smart enough?” that the student asks but “Do I have the time and emotional resources to do the work required?” and “Would such time be better spent working?”.There are millions upon millions of talented young men and women in this country, but without certainty and the discipline that stems from it they will never achieve in truly ground-breaking and valuable endeavors. Most will drop out, and the rest will major in what are often-dismissively labeled “Mickey Mouse” fields. With certainty comes absolution, with absolution comes courage, and with courage comes achievement— innate ability, for the most part, is irrelevant.