The author at the summit of Mt. Lassen (10,500' ).

Mount Everest stands over 29,000 feet above sea level – about the cruising altitude of a jet airliner. Anything above 26,000 feet is affectionately known as the Death Zone – for at this altitude the body can no longer acclimatize and literally begins to die. The oxygen level at the peak is so low that if someone were taken directly from sea level to the top without acclimatizing they would die within minutes. But even the lower elevations are merciless. Climbing on Everest has been described as climbing the stairs of the Empire State building with a couple tires slung on your back all day every day for a week while breathing through a stir straw. If that weren't bad enough, the temperature can get to 100 degrees below zero with 100mph winds that scream like a freight train across the ice - yet the inside of one's mouth can sunburn from radiation reflected off the snow. At the higher camps one rarely eats or sleeps.

It should come as little surprise, therefore, that it took 31 years and 13 deaths before the first climbers managed to reach the summit. Twenty-nine years after George Mallory's infamous third attempt (that killed him) in 1924, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made the first ascent. It was 10 more years before an American, Jim Wittaker, made it to the top. In 1978 Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler did what was considered impossible: an ascent of Everest without supplemental oxygen. Since Hillary and Norgay's first success in 1953 about 1,200 people have made it to the top - but over 200 have died trying. About 120 frozen bodies now litter its slopes. Despite all this, over 10,000 men and women have tried to climb Everest with hundreds of more added every year. These hopefuls will pay around $80,000 each - just for a shot at spending a few minutes on top of a big rock.

What are these people thinking? Why would anyone do this to themselves? What is it about climbing that inspires people to put their safety, soundness, and security (the very things normal people spend most of their lives pursuing) at such great risk? It isn't necessarily fame (most people could not name any famous mountain climbers nor cite any climbing records). It can't be money (no one gets rich climbing mountains). No, it is something else – and the danger seems to make it even more enticing. A common response is, “If you have to ask, you won't understand.” George Mallory's proverbial answer was even simpler: “Because it's there.” (And so is Mallory – his body was discovered in 1999).

Now for a little thought experiment. Imagine a person who is in love with the mountains. After years of climbing experience he finally gets a shot at the highest point on earth. He saves up well over a year's wages while training his body harshly, submitting it to extreme levels of discomfort and pain just to make it a little bit stronger than it was the day before. He makes the trip, spending a month climbing up and down between camps, pushing a little further each day until he is in position for the summit bid. He is never comfortable and hasn't slept or eaten much in the last week. He has lost nearly 40 pounds since beginning the assent. His mind is addled from lack of oxygen. On summit day he gets up at 3am, climbs for 10 hours straight, and finally takes the last grueling step – there is nowhere else to climb. He has made it to the top of the world.

Now imagine a second person. He likes the mountains somewhat (at least they are better than the burning desert). He prefers watching TV or playing video games all day. Then out of the blue he gets an offer to take a helicopter trip to the summit of Mount Everest (you can't really do this, but work with me here!). Having nothing better to do he takes the trip, is dropped off on the summit, takes a look around, and then flies away. Who do you think had the greater experience? Bboth people stood on the summit. Both saw the same view. But the climber had a much greater experience of course. All that pain and striving made reaching the goal all the sweeter. Without it, the experience would have been virtually unremarkable.

There are some remarkable similarities between a college or seminary education and climbing Mt. Everest. Both students and climbers start off fresh – ready to take on the world but face some of the greatest difficulties of the journey are very early on (with Everest it is the Khumbu icefall, at school it is the new terminology, expectations, culture, etc.). About half way through, both usually consider quitting as they realize the extent of what they have committed to accomplishing and feel tired and overwhelmed. For both students and climbers the last steps can be the most demanding of all (on Everest it is the Hillary step, in school it is final exams and paper completions). But at the end it is well worth it, and the greater the struggle the greater the "mountain top" experience.

Unfortunately, the parallels do not end there. On May 10th, 1996 eight climbers died in one day on Mt. Everest - a record. Most people blame the disaster on the high number of inexperienced climbers on the mountain that season being guided by professional companies competing for the number of climbers they could get to the top. These folks paid a company to carry their gear, cook their food, and even short rope (drag) them up the mountain if need be. The result was a bottleneck of slow, worn out, climbers very late in the day. A relatively striong storm swept the mountain and at the end of the day the two head guides and six client climbers were dead. How does this situation compare to education? Although it may not be obvious at first, just as poor climbers can kill other climbers, poor students can be allowed to ruin other students.

For example, I once taught a class at a local Bible College where one of the students was finishing his bachelor's degree. This student plagiarized much of his first paper and made some rather startling theological errors in class as well. Yet at graduation that year he walked across the stage with a gold honors rope. I was perplexed – if he was at the top of his game in my class (his last) I cannot imagine how poorly he must have done in previous classes. Worse, he had already been accepted into a well-known seminary.

What do you suppose will happen to this student when he leaves the safety zone of this college and goes to a legitimate seminary? He will probably fail. And what do you think the chances will be for future students from his college getting accepted there in the future? Probably very low because that school will now be known as one that graduates low quality students with honors. What do you think will happen when truly excellent students from that school cannot get in to good seminaries? What will become of such a school and its students?

There is a reason most people cannot climb Mt. Everest no matter how hard they try, and a disrespect for that can be deadly. Attempting to drag sub-par climbers up the side of Everest at any cost can end up killing both good and bad climbers alike. In the same way, rewarding mediocrity with grades of “above average” or “excellent” may seem merciful but it can ruin both students and schools. Students should not expect others to “climb the mountain” for them. They should work hard - do more than they think they can do. And professors should expect hard work and reward excellent work (although the two are not always equivalent). If climbers can do what they do for mountains, students and professors should do at least as much for God.