After a long Summer the school year had just started. Students were back and young Amelia Pallie, aged sixteen, was more ready than ever to make a blast of a year. Enrolled in North Haven High School, Connecticut, she was now a junior, and as such, one of her major goals was to score highly on the upcoming SAT. Specifically, she wished for a 1,500 or more. In order to accomplish such a feat, she would of course need to study diligently throughout the year— and maybe even over the summer if she were to take the SAT in early senior year. “This would be no problem.” she thought. Her studies were not particularly demanding and she could even study in school during her lunch in the library. Hence, she brought her personal laptop to school to study for the SAT. On her laptop, she had a program called Uworld dedicated specifically to SAT prep. As a result her laptop was mandatory for success in the SAT. Little did young Amelia know however, personal devices were forbidden from connection to the school WiFi network. As Amelia’s computer program required WiFi in order to function, she was stumped. Of course, Amelia could simply study at home; in order to study in the school library she would be taking away time at home to do homework anyways. However, the quiet atmosphere of the school library boosted her focus, making her study sessions far more productive than when she was cooped up in her stuffy room at home. Alas, without permission to connect to school WiFi, Amelia could not study for the SAT at school. There was nothing she could do– the only option would be to utilize Uworld on her school issued chromebook, which originally did not support the program until Amelia requested she be given school WiFi on her personal laptop in order to utilize the program, to which the school gave support to the school chromebooks. The underlying issue with studying with the school issued chromebooks however is simply put: they are abominable, miserable, repulsive, and grotesque; utterly horrible, the worst. To delve into the matter of why the school issued chromebooks are not realistically usable for SAT practice is not a worthwhile endeavor. The message is clear when stated that Amelia’s school issued chromebook stifles creativity and joy in life; studying for the SAT on one is not moral nor effectively feasible.
Students around the globe suffer such a fate each day as autocratic technology departments prevent free internet access in select schools, forcing students onto cheap, impractical chromebooks or other laptops opposed to allowing the free human spirit to execute its will and commit itself to spending its short life on a laptop which would provide an enjoyable and productive experience, which would evidently pay off. Ultimately, school issued laptops, in the majority of cases, are miserable to use and do not provide the same level of functionality a personal device would, and because it is the duty of the school to provide the utmost quality of education to its students, WiFi networks should be made free to all to allow a maximized quality of education. Hence, schools that restrict their WiFi to solely their network of issued laptops are making a grave mistake. Students like poor Amelia as a result have their overall efficiency reduced for no apparent trade-off, other than to satisfy the masked technology executives behind such WiFi-restricting policy. There is hope however: high schools such as Bergen County Academies (BCA), located in Bergen County, New Jersey, permit students to bring their personal devices to school and connect to the WiFi. Such brilliant policy is indicative of the student body’s high SAT scores when compared to the average student in New Jersey or the United States.
Opponents of free internet access claim that allowing personal electronics on school networks poses a security risk. However, this concern is largely unfounded– most schools already operate multiple WiFi networks. Such networks typically include a staff WiFi, a student WiFi, and a guest WiFi. If a secure WiFi network can be provided for foreign guests, then there is absolutely no reason it cannot be extended to students’ personal devices. In fact, foreign guests may pose a higher security risk than the student body. For example, schools like BCA allow students to connect personal devices to the network for academic purposes, demonstrating that secure access can be managed effectively; the student body poses no greater risk to the WiFi than guests. Moreover, opponents of free internet access argue it promotes students to bring personal devices to school, and as a result, constitutes a theft and jealousy risk. Again, this concern is largely unfounded. There is no risk of theft due to the locker system in place, and students are always with their belongings if not in their locker. Further, the fear of jealousy among the student body is baseless. Students are taught from a young age to be respectful of each other and to limit irrational feelings of envy. Jealousy should not be a problem in a well maintained environment at all. Thus, there is no realistic reason to limit WiFi access for students– all opposing arguments covered are unsubstantiated and thoroughly wrong.
Using a personal device for studying offers several advantages over a school issued laptop. To list a few, personal devices usually run faster and workflow on them follows more smoothly; personal devices allow students to unleash their creativity and full potential; and personal devices permit students to be overall happier. The upsides of personal devices offer a whole world of potential compared to the disconsolate, beaten slums of school issued electronics. There is ultimately no rational reason to prohibit students from connecting to school WiFi with their personal devices. Consequently I wish the best for poor students like Amelia who are forced to toil on their school issued devices while fortunate students in schools with superior administration prosper and shoot toward the stars with their personal devices on the school WiFi network.
Stop complaining. Grind harder.