There are assumptions that people who are street smart cannot be book smart as well. Why cannot one person be both? What does being book smart mean exactly? I believe that academics would benefit from broadening what is studied instead of the traditional academic works. Academics are looked at in “narrow” and “exclusive” ways. Shakespeare, for example, is a traditional work that students study throughout their career at school. One should not be discouraged if they don’t think of themselves as book smart. An individuals potential and success is much more than that. Schools should incorporate what is interesting to their students throughout different cultural aspects. Academics should not be so rigid all of the time. It is more natural to become a better writer, student, and analyzer when exploring topics that spark interest. This may even benefit the learning process. The quality of the work and creativity makes the difference in ones work. Teachers want to see that in their students . “Give me the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue in Source over the student who writes a lifeless explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology.” (375) The outside culture should be incorporated into academics. The labels of “book smart” and “street smart” should not exist anymore. Academics and society should not keep these two ideas divided. The best way to learn is through life experiences. Books and reading famous literary works cannot be the only form of education.