“The Great Research Disaster” reminds me of my own experience with research until this point in my academic career. As a high school student, my main priority was to achieve the highest grades I could to impress colleges. Secondary to that goal, actually learning something was a cool consequence of doing well in school.
Having over a 4.0 meant I knew how to take tests (mostly guessing), complete assignments on time and suck up to my teachers. However, it did not necessarily require me to go the extra mile in any form of education. Brownie points were assigned to those individuals willing to further investigate a subject past the course syllabus, but academic success in high school meant reaching the minimum requirements, and nothing more.
Another difference between high school and college.
Interestingly, my college experience, so far, deviates from high school. Pursuing an understanding beyond expectations is necessary for success in college. College, especially a liberal arts college, require an expansive knowledge on a wide variety of topics. My high school English teacher called a liberal arts education as “knowing at LEAST a little about a lot.” Essentially, the hallmark of a successful college education is to pursue knowledge of a subject to its fullest extent.
Although “The Great Research Disaster” is a guide of what not to do in research, it also points out the difference between success in secondary and higher education. That difference is moving outside of the requirements set for you in order to investigate a topic to its greatest extent.