Nope.
As the japanese proverb reportedly says:
"The nail that stands out, gets hammered."
The self-directed and self-motivated are derided as curve busters, obsessive, nerds, etc. Grandstanders making everybody else feel bad.
The politically correct approach is supposed to be cooperation and teamwork so that everybody shares the glory or avoids the embarrassment of failure. It is all about limiting risk, celebrating the mild, decrying the bold. Not about about pushing yourself to your limits, finding them, and then growing past them or working around them.
The evidence is piling up, though, that motivation and determination matters. That the willingness to work hard and stick with a task in the face of challenge and opposition is the best indicator of future success for children. More so than getting along with others and following the herd.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-ever/309402/
The above snippet is from the author of a recent, well-reviewed book on education, that highlights the effectiveness of challenging children, even *demanding* excellence, in developing a child's full potential.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Smartest-K...7094473&sr=1-1
http://www.economist.com/news/books-...-and-brightest
Competition is by definition a challenge.
Those that decry competition are saying that teaching conformity and acquiescence is preferable to challenging kids to excel. Makes for more pliable, less contentious citizens, obviously. Easier to lead for the powers that be, whether library directors or politicians.
And, of course, if challenging kids to excel is deplorable, how much more deplorable the ones that challenge themselves. A bunch of trouble makers, really. Inventing things, disrupting businesses and tradition. Pushing to the boundaries and beyond.
Better to wish them away, right?
(Good luck with that, BTW.)