Integrity
This may be cliché, but is nonetheless important. It matters to us whether we—or those we associate with—have integrity. To have integrity is to be well*-integrated—not into some larger organization, though that may be involved for some—but within oneself. Put differently, a person of integrity is a person that has a well-integrated life. Such a person knows what they believe, how they should act given those beliefs, is consistent in their beliefs and actions, and would likely be concerned if someone pointed out that they were not.
To lack integrity is to be inconsistent in one’s beliefs and actions. The college student that genuinely believes she should and will go to medical school, but refuses to take the courses that she knows medical schools expect applicants to have taken in college, is inconsistent and thus lacking integrity. Differently, the student that genuinely believes she should and will go to law school, but thinks this only for a day, the next day believing she should and will go to business school, the next day thinking she will not go to graduate school at all, the next day thinking …. (you get the idea) is also inconsistent and so lacking integrity. Neither of these students is someone who can be safely trusted—not because either intends to lie or is in any way malicious, but because neither has an internal (personal) need for what they say or do now to be consistent now or with beliefs they had before or beliefs they will have later.
If you knew either of the students just described, you could not know if what either says today will be something they believe now or are likely to believe or act on tomorrow. The agent of integrity, by contrast, can be described as subscribing to and abiding by a principle (or set of principles) with which their beliefs, desires, and actions are at least largely consistent—even if the agent is not fully aware of that principle or those principles. (This also means such an agent is capable of loyalty.)
Importantly, we all grow and learn, and (hopefully) adjust our beliefs and modes of action given new evidence and arguments; this can all be done in a way that is, loosely speaking, internally consistent—the individual takes a coherent path from one set of beliefs to another. We can have integrity while growing and changing. The two students described above are not doing that.
I do not mean to suggest, by the way, that college students should know what they want to do with their lives—especially when they are just entering college. Indeed, I largely think that misses the real point of college: to learn about a wide variety of disciplines with the space to learn who one wants to be in a well-rounded manner and with genuinely critical thought—i.e., by thinking things through and not merely accepting what one is told. In that way, college is a place where one can and should grow with integrity. A college student with integrity might thus come to school ready to learn how to think more clearly about a wide variety of disciplines. Having that ability would leave them able, for the rest of their lives, to adjust their beliefs and modes of action appropriately when faced with new evidence and arguments.
Of course, college is not necessary for integrity. There are many ways to learn about oneself and to ensure that one’s beliefs and actions are well-integrated. Indeed, I tend to think we ought to have developed integrity before being college-age. If one gets to college without it, it may be too late. And if one has it and does not go to college, one is in a good condition to grow well in whatever one pursues.
*A note about being well-integrated rather than merely-integrated. Someone is well-integrated if their beliefs and actions all cohere with a good principle or set of principles. Different people, though, may have beliefs and actions that cohere with a different sort of principle (or set of principles)—some good, some bad. For example, perhaps Lars goes to college with the sole motivation of learning how college students act so as to mix with them and kill them. Lars might have beliefs and take actions that are all in accord with a principle, but this would be a bad principle. The integration Lars has is not sufficient for what we value when we say we value integrity. We value a well-integrated person, and that means integration that is good. There may, of course, be some people that are integrated in ways that are not obviously good or bad. Some go to college with the sole motivation of earning a degree so as to get a high paying job. Such students would be acting according to a principle—they seem to have integrated selves. Some will find them to be well-integrated, some will not (or will find them less well-integrated than someone who goes to college to learn and become well-rounded). In short, while there is a certain usefulness in an evil person having an integrated set of beliefs and actions—at least we can know where we stand with them—we place more value on people having morally integrated beliefs and actions.