Anti Intellectualism Why We Hate The Smart Kids Analysis

Is Brawn is Better than Brains?: A Response to ¨Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids¨ “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids” by Grant Penrod is an essay written by a college student from Arizona State University, who writes about his perspective on a particular high school ideal. His thesis explains the three reasons he believes society dislikes intellectuals. His first reasons are the social stereotypes that are present early in high school with physical activities and intellectual activities. His second reasons are the public’s examples of celebrities that have became successful without an education. His final reason is the monetary obsessions that are desired rather than intellectual prosperity. It is for these reasons, Penrod explains, why we hate the smart kids.
I agree that most everyone at my school will remember the star of our football team, and no one will remember the most predominant speech team member, just like Penrod states in his essay.
However, you can't blame them for not remembering these individuals. I think that if you look back in human history you will find evidence that physical activity draw a much larger crowd than intellectual ones, because of the entertainment factor. Look at the Ancient Romans, they built the famous Roman Coliseum to mainly host battles. Next, look at all of the NFL stadiums that are built to host football games. Both are places you would or would’ve gone for entertainment. It isn't necessarily that people dislike intellectuals, it’s just that physical entertainment is usually more enjoyable in most societies than intellectual entertainment, therefore you are more susceptible to remember the star athlete rather than the star
intellectual. I do agree with Penrod’s statement about how celebrities with little or no education have influenced society to believe education does not play an important role in becoming successful. It’s every little kids dream to one day be rich and famous, so their parents tell them they need to study and get good grades to get there. I believe that there is nothing wrong with this, but when the kids learn about someone who became famous or rich without the education they often begin to think that they can do it to. They do not realized the importance of becoming an intellectual. I agree to a certain extent with Penrod’s final statement about how society would rather have monetary possessions rather than intellectual prosperity. If you had to choose between all of the money in the world or unlimited knowledge, what would you choose? Most people would choose the money, because our society often sees money as the most important thing in life. However, I do not think that it is necessarily a negative mindset to have, because I believe that with desire comes motivation. If I want a lot of money or other possessions I will work for it, which will make me a better human being, because it teaches drive and motivation. These are two things that are difficult for people to find when intelligence is the reward.
In conclusion, I think that the points that Penrod brought up are mostly true to a certain point. I do, however, think that Penrod should have placed himself in the “jock’s” shoes to give himself better understanding on why it seems that people don’t like intellectuals. If he did that maybe he would have noticed that society does not dislike intellectuals. Society dislikes non-social beings. I can say from personal experience that I am friends with a lot of people who would be considered intellectuals, but also enjoy physical activities. In the end, whether you agree with Penrod’s statements or not things are the way they are and there is no changing them.