The Obvious Objection: What About Rigor?

Whenever you argue that purpose is practiced rather than assigned, a reasonable objection appears quickly: this all sounds nice, but what about rigor? If kids are allowed to follow interests, won't standards slip? Won't they avoid hard things? Won't we end up with enthusiasm but no depth?

This objection is worth taking seriously, because it identifies a real failure mode. Interest alone is not enough. Unstructured choice without expectation can collapse into drift. A system that only celebrates enthusiasm will produce confidence without competence.

But this objection mistakes where rigor actually comes from.

Real Rigor

Rigor does not come from uniformity. It comes from sustained effort at the edge of one's ability. It comes from feedback, correction, and return. Those conditions are not guaranteed by standardized curricula. They are guaranteed by engagement.

In fact, most traditional schooling enforces rigor in the wrong place. It makes the content rigid and the effort optional. Students can comply mechanically, memorize temporarily, and succeed without ever being deeply challenged. The system appears demanding while quietly allowing disengagement.

Real rigor looks different. It shows up when someone cares enough to be frustrated. When they choose to continue even when progress slows. When mistakes matter because the work matters.

That is why the kid building a game can be pushed harder in math than the kid completing a worksheet. The math is no longer abstract or optional. It is instrumental. Errors break things. Understanding unlocks progress. Difficulty is not imposed. It is encountered.

The same pattern shows up everywhere real work exists. In science, art, writing, engineering. Standards emerge from the work itself. You cannot fake coherence in a proof. You cannot bluff clarity in an essay. You cannot ship a system that does not function.

The Role of Adults and Systems

This is where the role of adults and systems becomes precise, not permissive.

The job is not to lower the bar. The job is to attach the bar to something the student is carrying. Rigor should follow commitment, not precede it. Once a student has chosen a pursuit, the expectation must rise. Precision matters. Fundamentals matter. Sloppiness is no longer harmless.

A good system makes avoidance difficult and seriousness unavoidable.

This is also where technology, especially AI, matters. Not as a replacement for standards, but as a way to enforce them without flattening everyone into the same path. Difficulty can adapt. Gaps can be detected. Weak foundations can be addressed immediately, in context, without pulling the student away from the work they care about.

The result is not less rigor. It is inescapable rigor.

The Deepest Mistake

The deepest mistake behind the objection is the assumption that discipline must be imposed from the outside. In reality, the most durable discipline grows from inside the work. People endure far more difficulty when the effort feels meaningful.

Uniform systems mistake obedience for seriousness. They measure compliance and call it rigor.

A better model does the opposite. It gives students something real to be responsible for, then refuses to let them do it poorly.

That is not indulgent. It is demanding in the way the real world is demanding.

Purpose is practiced.
Rigor is practiced too.