By Patrick Cook-Deegan, Founder + CEO of Wayfinder & Mike Marriner, Co-Founder + President of Roadtrip Nation
What the Class of 2025 Really Needs to Hear: Purpose Over Platitudes
We’ve all sat through those graduation speeches—ones delivered by prestigious mentor figures who supposedly have it all figured out, full of hype and platitudes meant to make students feel like the world is at their fingertips, but lacking actionable advice for next steps after graduation. And we don’t really remember a word of them, because as young adults at pivotal moments in our lives, we needed more than a speech.
The world this year’s grads are walking into is faster, messier and more uncertain than ever. Technology is rewriting industries. College costs more and is less likely to lead to a single, lifelong career, as it once did. This graduating class is facing:
The old script—get good grades, pick a major, land a job—hasn’t held up for some time. This graduation season, students don’t need hype. They need a compass.
Building Strengths Along a Purposeful Path
Career readiness too often starts with, “What do you want to do?” instead of, “Who are you becoming?” Students are often given frameworks about majors and money, but rarely the tools to explore their interests, use their strengths professionally, or meaningfully address the problems they care about.
This—a toolbox of personal and worldly exploration—is purpose. It’s the engine behind drive, engagement and resilience in school and beyond. When students connect with their interests and purpose, everything else comes into focus. In fact, a strong sense of purpose is correlated with a number of positive outcomes that can help students thrive in school and beyond, including:
As we teach students to live purposefully, commit to their interests and succeed by developing their strengths, we must consider common pitfalls and misconceptions. For instance, we have to help them understand that purpose is ever-evolving—that it’s natural for it to shift over time. Moreover, if pursuing a single cause or interest becomes detrimental, a timely pivot can keep them aligned with their values even more so than a stubbornly unwavering commitment. Incorporating these considerations into purpose learning helps students pursue their goals with intentionality and care.
Your Why Is More Important Than Your What
The two of us have both taken unexpected paths. Neither of us followed a straight line.
Initially planning to become a doctor, Mike realized the hospital setting didn’t match his strengths or interests. Instead, he followed his passion for storytelling and exploration, hitting the road in a green RV with friends to interview people about how they found fulfilling careers. After seeing how many young people lacked exposure to diverse career paths, he co-founded Roadtrip Nation to share those stories. Today, the nonprofit partners with schools and other mission-driven organizations to create media, curricula and road trip journeys that help millions of students discover their interests and pursue their own paths.
Patrick zigzagged his way toward entrepreneurship from the lacrosse fields at Brown University to human rights advocacy across Southeast Asia and classroom teaching in Oakland, CA. Following a perceived need for more purposeful K-12 education, he designed a program that equips students with the tools to manage their well-being and make values-driven decisions. Beginning as a semester-long course for high schoolers, Wayfinder has grown into a full PreK-12 curriculum, helping students connect academics to their passions and build the skills to shape their futures.
When students know themselves and their Why, they don’t need to have everything figured out; they just need a direction. The specifics—college, job titles, majors—can and will change. What sticks is personal purpose and a commitment to making the most of our interests and values.
Rethinking Readiness for the Class of 2025
Today’s students need post-graduation options that are relevant, flexible and aligned with their purpose. College is one of many great options for helping them grow their interests and develop their skills. Exposing them to even more only enhances their understanding of how they can craft meaningful paths for their lives.
Accordingly, we need to redefine graduation readiness in a way that accounts for more than just the academic readiness needed for college. Our new definition of readiness must include helping build inter- and intrapersonal skills that last, like:
This year, instead of asking graduates “What’s next?”, ask them, “What matters most to you and how can you get involved?” Instead of pushing students toward prestige, help them pursue meaning through their interests. Let’s make purpose a new starting point—for the class of 2025 and beyond. It’s not too late to give this generation the advice we never got.
Policy Currents- The newsletter for policy people June 24, 2025
According to new RAND survey data, 49 percent of students in middle and high school are losing interest during their math lessons about half or more of the time. Seventy-five percent lose interest at least some of the time. Further, 30 percent said that they have never considered themselves to be a “math person.”
“Although boredom is not unique to math, routine boredom is a problem,” says RAND’s Heather Schwartz, lead author of the study. “These findings emphasize the importance of boosting student engagement to improve academic outcomes.”
So, what could lead to high-quality, engaging math instruction? RAND researchers suggest a mix of activities that include face-to-face interactions between teachers and students, offline and online lessons, and real-world math problems. “It may sound surprising in today’s high-tech environment,” says RAND’s Robert Bozick, who coauthored the report, “but online math activities might be less motivating than face-to-face instruction.”
These findings come from the first-ever survey fielded for the new RAND American Youth Panel, which asks young people ages 12–21 about school, college, entering the workforce, and more.
April 2021 Proceedings Vol. 147/4/1,418 US Naval Institute
The United States has a history of big, bold initiatives. Americans as individuals, however, have largely forgotten them. The New Deal is barely taught in school, most students do not understand why the United States fought World War II, and the Apollo space program might be remembered as an okay Tom Hanks film. Yet, big challenges and ideas have been at the core of American exceptionalism—itself a barely-remembered concept—since the founding of the Republic.
Today, in the shadow of a devastating pandemic and what might have been the most divisive election in the nation’s history, we are again faced with very serious challenges. But unlike most of the earlier challenges—threats to our freedom, economic hardships, natural disasters—we do not see ourselves as “one nation under God.” We are divided, mistrustful, angry, and probably far more fearful than we want to admit.
The Biden administration holds hope for many, but is distrusted by almost as many—not a particularly encouraging picture. Pundits talk about the need for political bipartisanship, but that requires politicians to actually cross the aisle and compromise. The rhetoric trumps the action. Even initiatives such as rebuilding crumbling U.S. infrastructure—that supposedly enjoy nearly universal support—cannot gain traction.
Is there anything that can break the logjam? Optimists believe that those currently in positions of political power will find compromise on the margins—probably starting with infrastructure. But on bigger issues such as health care? Not likely anytime soon.
Our best hope for a return to normalcy—to listening, to reason, to compromise—might be with the next generation. But what can we do to increase the chances that people will be tolerant of opposing viewpoints, different perspectives, unconventional ideas?
One answer—often repeated but rarely acted on—is to promote shared experiences. There is talk about having a “national dialogue” about important, difficult subjects—race relations being the most commonly heard. But we don’t talk to people outside our families and small circles of friends. We don’t seek out people in different socioeconomic classes, nor are we likely to invite them in.
Unless we have to.
National Service in the United States
We know—from more than 100 years of experience—that the best way to get people from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives to interact is through compulsory service. Several times in our nation’s history we have seen the military draft bring people together in common cause. People who otherwise would rarely, if ever, have contact have had to work together, listen to one another, help each other to achieve a common objective. They might not have liked each other, but they served together, shared experiences, and were exposed to ideas, perspectives, biases, language, food, places, tasks that they would never have otherwise seen. And we became a better nation because of it.
The military draft is not coming back. Nor should we abandon the very successful all-volunteer military. But we can use the model to do something bigger and almost as important: We can use mandatory national service to rebuild the nation.
For more than 60 years we have seen effective voluntary programs: The Peace Corps of the 1960s was followed by AmeriCorps in the 1990s. The Peace Corps has just 7,334 volunteers annually, and only 240,000 since its inception. AmeriCorps involves about 75,000 young people annually, and slightly more than 180,000 join the military every year. That is more than 260,000 young people volunteering, a tiny percentage of those in the age cohort: there are about 4.2 million people in each one-year group, or about 25 million in the 18–22 cohort. So, bravo and thanks to those young people who choose to volunteer, but they represent 1 percent of their peers. Voluntary service is nice and noble, but it is not actually bringing most people together.
The expansion of national service is not a new subject. Congressional leaders and major think-tanks have repeatedly proposed models of universal service. The importance and benefit of service is not disputed and is perhaps accepted now more than ever. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Senator Chris Coons (D-CT) introduced an expansion of national service programs to respond and recover from the current crisis. This bill, the bipartisan CORPS Act, points to national service as a path to address urgent community needs—public health, hunger, education, conservation, behavioral health. And, importantly, the bill highlights national service as an opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of meaningful employment opportunities.
The Aspen Institute, Service Year Alliance, and Brookings Institution all have bolstered this push for voluntary, but hopefully universal, service with compelling data that illustrates the ways in which an expanded ecosystem of service would benefit the United States, both as a nation and as individuals. However convincing the evidence may be, proposals for voluntary programs are just not enough. Not enough young people choose to volunteer.
Make Service Mandatory
Leaders and thinkers from across the political spectrum have proposed universal service as a means of uniting our country through shared experience. Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal, former head of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, has been advocating for expanded service opportunities and chairing the Service Year Alliance at the Aspen Institute. National service has been the subject of op-eds in publications as diverse as The New York Times and The Hill. Times opinion writer David Brooks’ “We Need National Service. Now” was among his most popular columns; and my pieces in The Hill generated more “shares” than any article I have ever written. And, perhaps as a testament to its appeal to the younger generation, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg advocated for universal service in his presidential campaign.
Surveys reveal there is strong support among most segments of the U.S. population for a program requiring all young people to serve a year or two in some service capacity. One recent poll conducted just after the 2020 election found that 80 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 22 support an 18-month program of mandatory national service. And, significantly, 88 percent of their parents support it too.
There also is broad agreement that military service should remain voluntary—those who wish to carry a gun and put themselves in harm’s way would have that option. But service—whether as a teacher’s assistant, a nurse’s aide, clearing forests, or rebuilding roads—would be mandatory. Everyone would serve, with no exemptions or favoritism in assignments. As one pundit put it: everyone would be equally unhappy with their task.
Op-eds, polling, congressional initiatives, and think-tank proposals all reflect the growing demand for a national conversation on the topic. Ask Americans whether they favor mandatory national service, and most will say, “It depends on the details.” There are dozens of questions, options, iterations, combinations. Conversations must start somewhere; and this is my proposed starting point:
This design is built on ten questions. By answering each, providing some context, and a rationale for the recommended option, we have the framework for a plan. The key questions are:
1. Who would serve?
2. When?
3. For how long?
4. What would people be doing?
5. Where would people serve?
6. Would people have any choice about what work they did?
7. Would people get paid?
8. What if someone did not serve or successfully complete service?
9. What will this cost?
10. Who is going to oversee this program?
Some answers follow.
Who Would Serve?
The simple answer is everyone. There would be no exemptions and very few deferments. The rich could not buy their way out. There would be no student deferments—as there were during the Vietnam draft era—and very few medical exemptions. What is not so simple is how to deal with cases on the margins. For example, we would certainly make reasonable accommodations for the disabled; but what would qualify as severely disabled and trigger an exemption? And who would make that determination?
Some categories of people—for example, the very best athletes whose peak performance years typically correspond to their early 20s (Tom Brady notwithstanding)—might require a bit of flexibility in the types of jobs they perform. The rule should be: no special treatment. We are not talking about five years of commitment; that would deprive them of their livelihood during their prime years. I am proposing—spoiler alert—just 18 months. Young people—even those with special talents— will be asked to make small sacrifices for the common good.
When Would People Serve?
Most countries that have mandatory national service programs require everyone to begin their service at a set time—either in the year of their 18th birthday, or immediately after graduating from high school. At first glance, that seems like a pretty reasonable way to structure an American program. But it may not be the best way.
An alternative would be to require registration before one’s 18th birthday, and then have a more flexible opt-in start date at any time before a person’s 22nd birthday. There are reasonably plausible rationales for this approach.
The first is flexibility. Not everyone will be doing the same service job. Some people may join the military—which would remain a completely voluntary “branch” of the mandatory program. And the military’s training pipeline would benefit from a bit of flexibility. Second, some people would benefit from serving when they are at the younger end of the age range while others might do better with a year or two of college (or work experience) under their belts. And having some people who are a bit older—and presumably more mature—could be a good thing.
But, again, the operative principle is that everyone is going to serve, and there can be a bit of flexibility for the common good.
How Long Will People Serve?
I propose 18 months. Why 18 months? Because it is longer than a year and less than two years—the two other most commonly suggested time commitments.
Compulsory service models generally reflect this timeline. Some of the most demanding countries, such as Israel, require several years of service. The Israeli Defense Force requires a 30-month obligation for men. Others, such as France, require just one month of service for high school students during the summer. But most countries, such as Finland, Norway, and Singapore, require service in the one- to two-year range.
Eighteen months gives people time to learn their jobs and make substantive contributions doing them. It is long enough to break bad (or nonexistent) work habits and develop new routines and skills. Yet, it is not so long to be so disruptive to people’s educational or professional plans.
What Would People Be Doing?
Should people be cleaning neighborhoods, caring for the elderly, assisting in pre-k classrooms, building low-income housing or . . . fill in the blank? What is not mentioned in the above—and in any anticipated list of priorities—is military service. It is a fundamental precept that service in the military should continue to be voluntary and would, of course, constitute one of the options available for satisfying a national service commitment.
AmeriCorps already has a model of service priorities in the United States. They fall into six priority areas: disaster services, economic opportunity, education, environmental stewardship, healthy futures, and veterans and military families. In the most recent year, AmeriCorps volunteers focused their efforts heavily on the COVID-19 response. Volunteers ran contact tracing, staffed testing sites, and worked in food banks. The climate crisis has been another focus of AmeriCorps service in the recent years. Members work in environmental conservation. They respond to and help prepare for natural disasters.
America’s needs are always evolving and priorities are often forced to shift. As we decide what issues are most pressing—and where national service participants should be assigned—AmeriCorps’ existing model can serve as a framework to place young people in service roles around the country
Where Would People Serve?
For the most part, it would be better for people to work as far away from their hometowns as possible; and in environments different from their neighborhoods. People from large cities would benefit from working in rural areas. Kids who have never (or rarely) set foot in big cities would benefit from being assigned to jobs in the inner city.
The rationale for suggesting this non-comfort-zone approach is simple: Participants would be better off being exposed to people and environments unlike their own. If an important objective of the program is to give people an opportunity to meet, work with, and hopefully understand people different from themselves—and create the basis for future common ground—people need to get out of their comfort zones. That means physically, emotionally, socially, and geographically.
Would People Have a Choice about What Work They Did?
The answer to this question should be yes, but with the realistic expectation that most people will not get the job they request. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made—and a temptation to say—that jobs should be randomly assigned. There would be less gaming of the system.
Men who opt for civil service in Switzerland organize their own assignments. Once a citizen’s application for civil service is approved, conscripts apply to positions that interest them, and they organize the terms of service with their host organization or institution.
AmeriCorps is similar. In the application process, people identify specific programs, positions, and locations they are interested in. (They do not always get their choice.) Could this level of choice be maintained in a scaled and mandatory version of the system? It seems unlikely.
WouldPeople Get Paid?
Yes, people would receive a subsistence allowance, in addition to room and board. But it should not even approach minimum wage. In addition, a small payment of $100 per week should be put aside into a mandatory, untouchable savings account that would become available to the participant on completion of service. (That amount saved would yield $10,000.)
In its present form, AmeriCorps offers a small allowance and benefits to all who serve. Members are paid a living allowance of approximately $13.00 per day and are paid biweekly a sum of $181.44. Other benefits include housing, meals, limited health care benefits, childcare options, and uniforms. On successful completion of service, AmeriCorps members also are eligible for an education award of $4,725. This award is intended to pay for qualified school expenses or to repay qualified student loans.
What if Someone Did Not Serve or Successfully Complete Service?
There should be consequences for failing to serve or successfully complete service. When the basic plan was surveyed in the fall of 2020, the “stick” that was suggested for failing to serve was the person would be ineligible for any federal student loan or mortgage guarantee program. Since then, several people have commented that such punishment would only really impact less affluent people. Kids from rich families are far less dependent on government loan programs.
Consequently, the consequences would be expanded to include ineligibility to attend any college or university that receives federal funds.
What Will this Cost?
A rough, “back of the envelope” calculation of the cost of an 18-month program in which everyone participates; are paid a small $100 per week allowance and an additional $100 per week goes into a savings account; live in college-like dormitories and eat college-quality food; and receive health care is approximately $133 billion annually.
$132 billion is a lot of money. But, it is less than one-fifth the cost of annual military spending. The Department of Agriculture is the closest in size, spending $129 billion in fiscal year 2021. The 2021 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs is $235 billion, and the budget is $60 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Who Oversees this Program?
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), an independent government agency, currently oversees AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and other civilian service programs in the United States. I propose CNCS take on responsibility for this new mandatory program as well, because it already has relationships with the various state service commissions that implement AmeriCorps programs in communities across the country; and has relationships with the local agencies, and nonprofits that oversee the various AmeriCorps projects.
That is my outline of a national service program. Now it needs to be fleshed-out, debated, refined, and argued about some more. It is a starting point, not the finished design. Will it be enacted? That is for the American people to decide.
In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, the U.S. has faced upwards of 200,000 deaths, nationwide civil rights and anti-racism protests, a growing deficit, a fractured economy, and long-term great power competition. America needs an institutional rebirth. History shows us that similar periods of institutional flourishing—like that which followed World War II—required a strong sense of domestic unity and international strength. But rather than unifying the country, the pandemic has only deepened the divisions which regional, economic, and electoral conflicts have conditioned into the population. As things stand, America will leave COVID with more strife than ever. A concerted effort to rebuild the country’s unity will be necessary before anything else is possible.
One of the most tried and tested models for creating unity across Western democracies is that of national service: a compulsory gap period, usually between one and two years, in which young adults contribute directly to the country. Nations such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland continue to have such programs today, and countries like France and Germany only suspended their peacetime mandatory service programs after the end of the Cold War—although most of these countries have or had civilian service alternatives before then.
A similar program implemented in the U.S. would be an effective way to reinvigorate the country’s civic ties. We could call this proposal the American Service Fellowship (ASF). Under the ASF program, it would be possible for approximately 90% of American high school graduates to enter a year of military service and for the remaining 10% or so to serve in diplomatic roles through the State Department or other agencies. This would remake and eliminate the existing draft structure, moving toward a hybrid draft and volunteer force model. It would reapportion the military recruiting budget—roughly $3 billion as of 2017—and a portion of the civil and foreign service recruiting budget of nearly $100 million.
This is not a new idea: Stanley McChrystal and Pete Buttigieg have each floated a more limited version of this proposal in recent years. But the current moment has made the necessity for institutional renewal more clear than it has ever been.
There are three reasons why now is the time for a national service program.
Why Should We Do This?
The reemergence of great power competition is one of the defining foreign policy and security issues the ASF would be well-suited to address. The ASF would not be meant to function as a military mobilization; it would instead serve as a program for military reserve and diplomatic force strengthening. Overseas military placements in logistical or technical roles combined with international diplomatic placements would prepare a key cohort to serve abroad in both security-focused and diplomatic roles.
From a military perspective, all of the service branches have been given lofty goals for force strengthening, such as attaining a 355-ship Navy, establishing the Space Force, and growing the military’s cyberwarfare capabilities. The military’s mobilization structure is fundamental to meeting the challenges of modernizing a growing force. Unfortunately, the U.S. structure is currently embodied in the antiquated Selective Service System, which was not even included as a relevant mobilization option in 2019 Joint Force planning hearings.
The Selective Service System, currently led by former Washington state senator Donald Benton, could be leveraged to a far greater extent. It has the potential to include not only men of 18-25 years of age but also women and to expand the upper age bound to 35. This is a reasonable target, especially given the resources that great power competitors such as Russia and China dedicate to national defense education. According to one CNAS scholar, nearly 3,000 Chinese higher educational institutions and 22,000 high schools annually organize students to undertake military training. In 2018, nearly 6 million Chinese college students were required to complete military training prior to starting the academic year.
Although the ASF would be a one-time commitment, it would continue for 12 months. This would make it longer, but also more concentrated than annual and repeated 2-week commitments as in China. This would give Fellows the opportunity to become familiar with the issues and skills in their area of specialty—such as maintaining domestic nuclear arsenals—on a deeper level than is possible in a short-term commitment. It would also invest in potential recruits for long-term military service, especially in areas involving cyber or other technological expertise. This has been a significant challenge for the military up to now. Marine Corps General Dennis Crall noted in a 2018 Senate hearing that it was difficult to recruit competent cyberwarfare experts across the country due to private sector competition and low numbers of qualified people. By exposing top coders to the services early on, the military would be able to increase its recruiting reach far beyond its current capabilities.
The emergence of great power competition is far from the only reason for implementing this proposal, however. Although most national service proposals focus solely on the military, a defining upgrade of the ASF should be to place the top 10% of high school graduates who apply into a diplomacy-related track overseas. This would serve to reinvigorate the Foreign Service pipeline.
This reflects a need to recruit the best talent possible to the Foreign Service, which represents America to the world. Too often, America’s most visible representatives around the world are wearing camouflage. Although the military is vitally important to American security interests, it would behoove the U.S. to project a more approachable, confident, and competent image. This initiative can expose the world to America’s future Rhodes Scholars, National Science Foundation grantees, Phi Beta Kappas, and service club presidents, and likewise expose those future leaders to international careers in government.
The State Department is currently at its lowest level of recruitment in over a decade. The ASF would give it the first chance to recruit top talent before it goes to Google, Harvard, or McKinsey. This would be a tremendous step towards rebuilding and rethinking the public sector, as career diplomat William Burns has called for, while simultaneously giving Fellows exposure to the work of America’s diplomats and special agencies.
Finally, in addition to preparing for great power competition and restoring the federal government’s non-military strength abroad, the ASF would fill a potential need for a modern-day Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the post-COVID economy. If the program is revenue-neutral, and not just another deficit-increasing entitlement, it is likely to win over much popular support. One scholar estimates that reducing the size of the active-duty forces of the Army and Marine Corps with conscripted soldiers in the Reserves could save over $75 billion annually.
The ASF would be quite ambitious and probably have to involve earlier intervention in high school physical and civic education, as well as whole new institutions to absorb the new recruits. But while it may require significant effort to coordinate, in the long run, it will help to foster greater national unity and social integration by exposing citizens of all backgrounds to work for the previously distant federal government. Additionally, it can aim to decrease political radicalization by unifying recruits towards common goals and increase skills and virtue through specialized technical and physical training. The latter could potentially go a long way to combat obesity, drug addiction, and homelessness among the next generation.
How The ASF Would Work
How would the ASF structure achieve the above goals? The first step would be to comprehensively review all existing similar programs that could be subsumed or integrated into the ASF, as well as which ones might need to be discontinued altogether. One example of how this could be done would be by surveying alumni, staff, and international liaisons of past programs on a Net Promoter Score (NPS) scale. Some measures of success will necessarily be subjective, but in such cases, long-term staff members could submit briefs as to the tangible and intangible goals achieved over the last 5 years of the program and the future potential of integrating them.
As this review is being undertaken, a broad coalition of universities would need to be brought on to agree to one-year mandatory deferrals for an incoming class. This would lead to a temporary drop in the number of undergraduate students, which some universities may initially balk at; however, it would only impact one class of incoming students, as future classes would all have completed the ASF. The best way to bring universities on would be to persuade leading institutions such as the Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, and the University of California system to participate, and lobby others to follow.
A carrot-and-stick approach should be possible here. Ideally, universities could be brought on board with a combination of arguments: the ASF would increase their graduates’ post-grad employment rates, reduce their debt burdens by providing more access to government careers and loan repayment programs, and give them a stronger sense of drive and discipline that would help them in the classroom. If there are still significant concerns, it may be reasonable to provide a limited number of one-time grants to universities that can make a case that they will face significant financial shortfalls this year that threaten their long-term stability. Should this approach be inadequate, using the stick of revoking Pell Grants and reducing federal loan funding to schools which fail to comply would be a less ideal but potentially effective hardball option.
Once existing programs have been integrated into the ASF, and most universities have agreed to grant one-year deferrals to students, the next step would be to integrate applications from all military branches, entry-level non-career-appointment State Department positions, and other relevant talent or fellowship programs. A scoring system would be put into place to rank applicants based on the application responses and other factors such as GPA, test scores, extracurricular interests, and personal statements. Although all graduating high school seniors will be required to submit an application, exceptions could be granted based on extenuating factors such as grounds of conscience, medical inability, etc.
The admissions officials should target sending approximately 90% of applicants to the military, and the rest to serve overseas in diplomatic roles, broadly defined. In order to do this, Congress will need to overhaul the existing Selective Service System when enacting the ASF in order to make the ASF mandatory for all graduating high school seniors, plus non-graduates 18 and over. Military standards may need to be adjusted as well in order to accommodate varying levels of physical fitness, given the U.S.’s status as the country with the highest obesity rates in children and adults among developed countries. This has successfully been done in other developed countries, such as South Korea, Israel, Finland, and Greece, and could be remediated, at least in part, by reforming the secondary school physical education curriculum.
As mentioned above, overseas diplomatic Fellows should be top performers. The U.S. has an incentive to share America’s best students with the world and help them learn as much about their host country as possible rather than making its primary presence a military one. For reference, many top Chinese diplomats have been in the same region or even country for their whole careers, and they are able to lean on that experience when times are particularly difficult. If the U.S. had 500 Mandarin-fluent experts in its Chinese embassy and consulates, that could do wonders for U.S. diplomacy in China.
The type of work that diplomatic Fellows could do ranges from entry-level State Department roles in a consulate to positions that would encompass Fulbright teaching assistant roles or Peace Corps fellowships. Consular roles could take the form of public diplomacy or entry-level administration: running and assisting English language or other educational programs abroad, administrative work at foreign embassies and consulates, researching and writing policy briefs for political officers, and so on. Training that currently exists for the Fulbright and Peace Corps could also be integrated into the preparation for ASF diplomatic Fellows.
Some may critique this model, saying it could potentially exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in the relatively homogeneous U.S. diplomatic corps. In response, a diversity initiative may be helpful. The ASF could also implement a state-based competition like the PSAT test rather than a national standard to give the ASF a more geographically representative corps of Fellows.
In addition, the significance of the ASF to Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds should not be understated, as they will be exposed to better opportunities than may otherwise be available. After the ASF, options should be given to top performers for full scholarships and a post-graduation job guarantee, or even to take a job immediately. This would increase upward mobility for disadvantaged students, which may help to reduce overall inequality.
Objections and Responses
Among the objections to an ASF, perhaps the most salient would be that the plan is politically infeasible. On one side, conservative congressmen may say that the ASF would be too expensive and bureaucratic, while civil liberties-minded progressives may say the program is too paternalistic and too militaristic.
However, the plan can likely be made less bureaucratic than the current system, since it would be streamlining multiple burgeoning programs into one. And although the cost of mandatory conscription may be high, it may not be as high as one might think. A 2001 Rand analysis put the cost of reinstituting the draft at $4 billion, which would today equal roughly $5.79 billion. But a cut in the current military recruiting budget of nearly $3 billion could significantly reduce that cost, allowing the administration to far surpass the White House’s goal of establishing an end strength of 2,140,300 active and reserve military personnel while increasing the quality of the State Department’s diplomatic corps, as laid out by the Secretary of State in the 2019 strategy and budget request.
In addition, the ASF Fellowship is less paternalistic than you might think. Exceptions for reasons such as health, familial necessities, and conscientious objection are well-established precedents in American national service. National service is also far from a marker of militarism. Many Western countries with such a program are known as among the least militaristic nations in the world: for example, Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden have mandatory conscription, and Mexico, Brazil, and Denmark have an active draft system. Unlike other programs, however, a well-executed ASF would be desirable enough that those eligible won’t want to opt out of an opportunity to do overseas peacekeeping work and develop practical skills in mostly domestic military posts.
In terms of concern about the military aspect, the trust Americans have in the military translates into fairly high and bipartisan support for its reliability: 83% of Americans said in a 2020 Pew poll that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the military, greater than religious leaders and journalists and exceeded only by scientists. While support among younger people may be somewhat lower, on balance, this matches attitudes in other Western states, and there is little reason to think that conscription avoidance would be much higher than in any comparable Western country.
Although the political fulcrum is constantly shifting, it is conceivable that in the post-COVID economy, there would be a political appetite for a government jobs guarantee like the ASF in 2021, particularly on the political left. There has also been bipartisan support for such an idea in the past. For reference, Pete Buttigieg proposed a similar opt-in program in the 2020 Democratic primary, and a healthy majority of 57% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters supported a mandatory draft in 2017. The same poll showed support among 39% of Americans ages 18 to 29, not a majority but by no means small—and this is without the broader aspects of an ASF beyond military service.
It is also possible that business-minded groups will lobby Congress against the ASF because they stand to cede the first chance to recruit students to the government and the military. To alleviate this, the ASF could open up an incentive for business groups to do high school apprenticeships, which may preclude some from even needing to attend college. It could also counter-lobby business groups, promoting the patriotic nature of the program to serve the country and emphasizing that the vast majority of students going through this program will enter the workforce. For reference, the Thai Army, which conscripts a small percentage of those eligible for the draft, had a retention rate of just 13% of conscripted soldiers last year.
The ASF would provide a focused solution to shoring up America’s position abroad and strengthening its military at home, in advance of growing great power competition. Regardless of the victor of the 2020 presidential election, this program could be folded into a program of domestic renewal (such as Biden’s ‘Building Back Better’ plan) and a foreign policy approach of responding to great power competition, as Mike Pompeo has done in his role as the Secretary of State.
The ASF can streamline existing government programs, boost the economy, and bring about a greater sense of national unity through shared commitment to America’s institutions and interests. It could yield a sharper, smarter fighting force while strengthening America’s domestic supports. This is a solution to the most fundamental problem facing the country, and the best time to get started is now.
James Haynes is a researcher at the Brookings Institution’s China Center, research consultant for the New Yorker’s China correspondent, and editor of the China Biotech Bulletin. He can be followed at @jameshaynes22.
While many of our students achieve at the highest levels, not all have had access to the opportunities and resources needed to meet their full potential. I am committed to MCPS’s mission to address disparities in student outcomes by closing gaps in opportunity and achievement for every student, in every classroom, in every one of our schools.
To achieve our shared goals for an excellent educational experience that works for all students and fully supports all staff, we must first ensure the workplace and school environments are in place to support readiness and achievement before any changes for improvement can be implemented. Therefore, I think in the following way: first, we must consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs before we can even tackle Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. This means we must support the basic needs of students and staff before we make systemic operating changes to how we do the work.
Sending off a resume and tailoring a cover letter to a specific employer used to be the gold standard when applying to jobs.
This is no longer the case. While many companies and employers still ask for them, traditional resumes are increasingly seen as too static, too one-dimensional, to provide any actionable information for recruiters and hiring managers.
There are solid reasons employers are turning away from resumes, and there are all sorts of new things they are looking for instead.
Resumes simply don’t provide the necessary information
Resumes used to be a fast, simple way for employers to find employees with the qualifications they wanted. When humans had to read all the job applications themselves, it helped to have one page of information that highlighted a person’s degree and job titles in handy, bullet-pointed lists.
Because employers now tend to receive so many applications for so many positions, they typically employ applicant tracking systems (ATS) to sift through them and discard those that don’t include keywords or formatting required by the recruiter or hiring manager.
This means that recruiters and HR departments will increasingly square off against job seekers in AI battles that will be detrimental to both. Employers will double down on what they think are the most pertinent keywords their applicants need to use, and applicants will use tools like ChatGPT to employ those keywords.
Luckily, both employers and applicants are turning to new (maybe even more effective?) ways to find one another.
Rise of the video
There’s a reason people spend a lot of time on YouTube and TikTok. Videos are a powerful medium, and applicants are beginning to submit them — in the form of “video resumes” — to potential employers.
Although experts warn that video resumes are becoming more popular, that doesn’t mean they’re right for everyone — or for every role.
When done well, however, video resumes can highlight applicant strengths that might never have shown up on traditional resumes. Video resumes allow people to showcase their personality and communication styles, helping employers visualize how applicants might fit into their workplace culture.
The video format is also helping employers get right to interviewing, faster. Rather than taking a chance on offering just a few qualified applicants in-person interviews, which can be costly and time-consuming, recruiters and other hiring professionals are more frequently offering candidates “asynchronous” interview questions.
This means that employers can ask more candidates the same predetermined interview questions, and allow applicants to record videos of themselves answering those questions.
Asynchronous interviews can be beneficial for both hiring professionals (resulting in travel cost savings and a wider pool of applicants) and those hoping to be hired (who can take more time to prepare their answers, and showcase their interpersonal communication skills).
The power of your online presence
Employers frequently state that they are moving away from resumes because they are more interested in people’s demonstrable skills than in the job titles they’ve had.
One way in which job applicants can show (not tell) their skill set, is to optimize their online presence to highlight those skills.
J.T. O’Donnell, the founder and CEO of Work It DAILY, says that companies and employers are now Googling prospective employees after checking out their resume, but before scheduling interviews, because they are looking for evidence that you’re knowledgeable, credible, and capable of solving their problems.
O’Donnell also lists the components of a strong online presence that can wow prospective employers. Items employers might be particularly interested in include applicants’ LinkedIn profile (including the “about” section, posts about recent achievements, and a job-seeker’s connections) and their “thought leadership content” (content produced to provide tangible resources to other colleagues).
Other online products applicants have created can also entice recruiters and hiring managers, including websites, coding repositories, and online work samples.
A prospective employee’s online presence also includes their social media footprint. Many companies are now performing “social media background checks” on applicants they are considering — meaning that they are looking not only at professional attributes, but at personal values and behaviors as well.
It’s a brave new world of hiring — and being hired
Resumes used to be a tried-and-true method for employers and prospective employees to find one another in an efficient, consistent way.
But job candidates can now present more personal, immediate, and specific pictures of their skills and their interpersonal and online “personalities” to recruiters and hiring managers. Likewise, those doing the hiring can learn so much more about candidates than they were once able to from a short, text-only document.
New times call for new tools, and even if the resume becomes obsolete, those on both sides of the hiring equation should take heart that there are so many exciting new ways to meet one another.
Author(s): Snyder CR, Hoza B, Pelham WE, Rapoff M, Ware L, Danovsky M, Highberger L, Ribinstein H, Stahl KJ
Directions: The six sentences below describe how children think about themselves and
how they do things in general. Read each sentence carefully. For each sentence,
please think about how you are in most situations. Please check inside the
circle that describes YOU the best. For example, please check in the circle
above “none of the time” if this describes you. Or, if you are this way “all
the time,” check this circle. Please answer every question by putting a check
in one of the circles. There are no right or wrong answers.
I think I am doing pretty well.
None of the time
A little of the time
Some of the time
A lot of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me.
None of
the time
A little
of the time
Some of
the time
A lot of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
I am doing just as well as other kids my age
None of
the time
A little
of the time
Some of
the time
A lot of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it.
None of
the time
A little
of the time
Some of
the time
A lot of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future.
None of
the time
A little
of the time
Some of
the time
A lot of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
Even when others want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve the problem.
None of
the time
A little
of the time
Some of
the time
A lot of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
Citation:
Snyder CR, Hoza B, Pelham WE, Rapoff M, Ware L,
Danovsky M, Highberger L, Ribinstein H, Stahl KJ. The development and
validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of pediatric psychology.
1997;22(3):399-421.
Raising a happy and resilient kid requires more than just encouragement—it involves fostering hope. Through goal-setting, resilience, and pathways to success, children can grow with the optimism and confidence they need to thrive. Here’s how hope plays a central role in their wellbeing.
Think of two children you have regular contact with: one who is resilient and happy, and one who is struggling and languishing. Imagine you are interviewing each of them, and you ask them to respond to each of these six questionnaire items:
I think I am doing pretty well
I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are important to me
I am doing just as well as other kids my age
When I have a problem I can come up with lots of ways to solve it
I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future
Even when others want to quit, I can find ways to solve the problem
Chances are that the child who is resilient will respond affirmatively to these items. The child who is struggling is more likely to say ‘no’ than ‘yes’.
These items are from the Children’s Hope Scale, and assess the hopefulness of children and teens. In terms of resilience and wellbeing, hope is a critically important predictor of how our children are going.
Understanding Hope
Psychologists say a person has hope when they belief that they can find ways to achieve their goals and to motivate themselves to try and follow those ways to get those goals. Hope theory suggests we need three things to actually have ‘hope’:
Goals – something we are aiming to achieve in the future
Pathways – at least one way (and hopefully more than one) that we might achieve those goals
Agency (or sometimes called efficacy) – the belief that we can actually make things happen along those pathways in order to get the goal.
Hope vs Optimism
Hope sounds a bit like optimism. We hope good things will happen… so we’re optimistic. But there’s more to it than that.
While optimism is the belief that good things will happen in the future, and the sense that the glass is half full, hope is about taking that optimism, making it goal oriented, and putting legs on it to make things happen.
And while optimism is great for boosting wellbeing and can act as a useful tool for inoculating people against depression, it seems hope does it better. This may be because while optimism is a positive mindset, hope is about action.
Why hope?
The Importance of Hope for Children
Kids who are hopeful are happier. They are more satisfied with life. They even do better with things like academic and athletic achievement and success. Hopeful kids have better relationships.
And if you don’t have hope, well, you’re hope-less. That’s related to all the things we don’t want for our children. Hopeless kids don’t try, have poor relationships, and feel helpless. They don’t achieve goals, often because they don’t set any. And when they do set them, that’s where it stops because they don’t have enough hope to find ways to achieve those goals.
How to Instil Hope in Your Child
Parents who want to instil hope in their children can try the following three ideas:
Build a future focus. Speak to your children about their possible futures. What do they want to achieve, and why? Have them imagine their potential best selves. Talk to them about what they’re looking forward to. Ask them what they want to have, do, and be.
Work with them on plans (or pathways).When your child says “I want to be a marine biologist”, be encouraging and then ask them, “What do you need to do to get there?” Discuss pathways, options, and possibilities. Thinking about the future and making plans is central in fostering hope.
When they’re stuck, rather than giving them an answer, ask them, “What do you think is the next best thing to do?” or “When have you overcome something like this before?” These types of questions promote a sense of agency or efficacy. Rather than having our children rely on us for all of the answers, they can rely on themselves, their resourcefulness, and their initiative. They can recall times they’ve succeeded before and use that to build hope that they can succeed again.
As parents, our wish for our children is that they will grow up happy and resilient. Our wish can become ‘hope’ when we use these three keys to build hope in them as they look towards the future.
Kids hope for a lot of things. Some kids may hope that Santa will bring them a puppy for Christmas or that they can become great at what they love – when I was a child I hoped to be an accomplished ballerina. Still other kids hope that their brother will stop fighting in school or that their mom will get a better job to help pay the bills. Regardless of the object of hope, the ability to possess hope has significant benefits for children. For example, children who feel hopeful set high goals for themselves, are more optimistic, and have higher self-esteem.
Despite these benefits, levels of hopefulness decline with age. Where did all that hope for the future go? Why are youth naturally more hopeful? Can anything be done to keep hope from fading with age? These important research questions are central to the work of Dr. Ashley Fraser in Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life.
Measuring Hope
Dr. Fraser’s work builds on the theory of hope developed by Rick Snyder (Fraser et al., 2022) which highlights three central characteristics through which hope is experienced. For an individual to truly hope for something, they must be able to first, set a goal. Second, they need to engage in a process known as pathways thinking, which means making a plan to accomplish the goal. Third, the individual must believe that they can make the choices and develop the abilities necessary to follow that plan, a practice known as agency thinking.
In light of this process, Dr. Fraser’s research aims to identify how the unique experience of each individual affects their ability to develop hope.. She examines how the quality of relationships with family and friends relate to the characteristics described by hope theory. Importantly, her research highlights how people’s differences in race, gender, socioeconomic status, and religion, either promote or hinder the abilities central to children’s ability to hope.
\Though many studies have examined how feelings of hope change over time (Fraser et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2022), Dr. Fraser’s research goes beyond documenting levels of hopefulness to examining what influences the experience of hope. In order to measure the nebulous construct of hope, she observes children’s behaviors associated with goal-setting, pathway thinking, and agency thinking during a structured play task.
In this play task, Dr. Fraser’s research team assigns children to complete an easy task where the goal is for each child to drive a toy car through a simple maze to reach a sticker. After the children complete this task, they are asked to do the same thing but this time the pathway to the sticker is blocked. The speech and behaviors the children use to complete this task even with the obstacle allows Fraser and her team to observe elements of pathway thinking. The final task assigned is an impossible one. All of the paths to the sticker are blocked. Researchers monitor the kids’ self-talk and reaction to facing an impossible task in order to measure aspects of their agency thinking. These observations, allow Dr. Fraser’s team to examine characteristics of hopeful thinking in children and also analyze the type of things that influence its development and expression over time.
The Importance of Hope
When kids feel hopeful, they have better outcomes. In school, kids who feel more hopeful score better on tests and reach a higher GPA (Fraser et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2022). Emotionally, kids who feel more hopeful have higher self-esteem, believe in themselves more, and feel a stronger sense of purpose and meaning in life (Bryce et al., 2020; Fraser et al., 2022). Hope can offset poor mental health such as depression and anxiety (Fraser et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2022). Further, hope is not a fixed or innate ability. Research shows that hope can be taught and learned (Bryce et al., 2020; Fraser et al., 2022) and that positive experiences in children’s families and schools can help them feel more hopeful about their abilities and their futures.
How to Encourage Hopefulness in Children
Based on the research surrounding hope, Dr. Fraser suggests three ways to promote higher levels of hopefulness across childhood.
• First, regularly and intentionally discuss the future with children. Guide and assist children in setting goals that are realistic and attainable. 2 https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/familyperspectives/vol5/iss2/3Siddoway: The Importance of Teaching Kids How to be Hopeful
• Help children make smaller “stepping stone” goals that will help them to achieve their larger goal. When challenges arise, work with children to overcome those obstacles in order to keep moving towards their main goal.
• Provide warmth, love, and support. By developing a relationship that is founded on encouragement, children are better equipped to believe in themselves. Praise children when smaller goals are reached and encourage children to not give up when obstacles occur.
Discussing the future, working on small goals, and being supportive can help children nurture hope. This hope is a powerful tool for building a brighter future.
References: Bryce, C. I., Alexander, B. L., Fraser, A. M., & Fabes, R. A. (2020). Dimensions of hope in adolescence: Relations to academic functioning and well‐being. Psychology in the Schools, 57(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pits.22311
Fraser, A.M., Alexander, B.L., Abry, T., Sechler, C.M., & Fabes, R.A. (2022). Youth Hope and Educational Contexts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE117-1 Fraser, A. M., Bryce, C. I.,
Alexander, B. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2021). Hope levels across adolescence and the transition to high school: Associations with school stress and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 91, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.07.004
Family Perspectives Family Perspectives Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 3 2023 The Importance of Teaching Kids How to be Hopeful The Importance of Teaching Kids How to be Hopeful Cambria Siddoway cambsidd@student.byu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/familyperspectives Part of the Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Siddoway, Cambria (2023) “The Importance of Teaching Kids How to be Hopeful,” Family Perspectives: Vol. 5: Iss. 2, Article 3.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/familyperspectives/vol5/iss2/3
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND * COMMUNITY SERVICE, operating as
AmeriCorps, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion issued today, in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), and upon finding that the defendants likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before making significant changes to service delivery, that the plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if this injunction does not issue, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction, it is this 5th day of June, 2025, hereby ORDERED:
b. The defendants shall RESTORE the affected AmeriCorps programs in the plaintiff states to the status quo prior to the April 25, 2025 grant terminations by
– REINSTATING the grants in the plaintiff states that were terminated
-and by RETURNING to service the AmeriCorps and VISTA members who were serving on those programs as of the date of the grant terminations (if they are willing and able to return).
Posts by Paul Costello1
