Back in the day, almost every family that sent a child to an expensive, elite college already was rich.
“Liberal education” meant educating people for a life of liberty, which is to say for a life of never needing to work a single day, or to take orders from anyone else … unless one freely chose to do so. Much of the liberal arts curriculum still derives from classical ideas about educating an aristocracy for the disciplined use of leisure time. Except that today, an average schlub can get the kind of education meant for the 1% when it was invented.
On the other hand, our economy has become very knowledge-driven. Creating and sharing knowledge are at the heart of what modern universities are supposed to do. The best colleges not only teach existing knowledge, but also help students learn how to create and share new knowledge. Governments, companies, and investors do pay good money for that ability.
I disagree with idea that the original purpose of an education at an American elite university was a life where you wouldn’t work. The majority of the ivies were founded to train Puritan and Congregational ministers- so actually began with a truly “vocational” purpose. William and Mary in the south was the 1st founded for “the elite”. (also the only college in the south for most of the colonial era). I would argue purpose of elite liberal arts education has always been to help develop a “well rounded” individual … The whole idea of a “life of leisure” (at least for men- cult of domesticity aside- which is why a college education for women was very rare until about 100 years ago) is a very modern concept. For most of our history the “Protestant work ethic” (another legacy of the puritans) has been too much a part of the American character- especially in the northeast- home of the majority of elite colleges.
This already got responded to, but it’s a widely vectored reading of history, so my bit: This is an incredibly inaccurate claim, and is based on a misreading of what socioeconomic elites of the 1700–1950 era supposed liberty and freedom to entail.
^^ I appreciate the counterpoint that liberal education did not have the same meaning in colonial America that it did in classical antiquity (and that more than one historic source has influenced its modern forms).
I feel NJSue nailed it with the above post. The original article was brought to my attention by a public college dean, whose bachelor’s, master’s, PhD, and previous teaching experience were all at top public colleges. Quoting from the article:
I’ve always felt that “fit” needs to take finances and the parent’s budget into account. I personally do not believe in amassing large undergraduate school debt, but to each his own. I do think it’s OK to spend a lot on education (or anything else) if you value and can afford it.
<I am at Oberlin College today (for an arts festival) and the college t shirts have a saying on the back that I think is apropos to this thread
“Success is not about the amount of money you make, but the difference you make in somebody’s life” Michelle Obama>
Exactly. Students shall think about the difference tuition payments are making in the life of their parents. Their siblings. Their future children. Just think about one-thousand-ways you could have spend these money instead of giving it to your college.
“A receptionist position at a law firm requires the ability to write a grammatical email; check vendor invoices for errors (deliveries which show up at the “front door” vs. computer equipment and things that arrive via purchase order); know basic life skills like don’t call a partner in Europe at 9 am Eastern time at home-- since you will likely wake her up, etc”
I am a “semi-retired” former managing partner of an AmLaw Top 200 law firm… Our receptionists performed all of the above, and more. They each worked for my firm for a couple of years and then moved on - law school, business school, management jobs, even musical careers. Their base salaries were about $60,000 a year, plus bonuses and full benefits. So yes, we required at least a bachelor’s degree in the screening process.
As to the original question:
(Just my opinion, so no stones, please).
Option A: go to a college, study a subject you enjoy, and do your best (And, chip in a little to help your parents out). As a post above stated, your college record will count more than your college’s pedigree. In my past, my firm would always pick new lawyer hires on the basis of grades and performance rather than academic pedigree. An Ivy League slacker was still just a slacker.
Option B: get a job, work hard, save some money and start your own business. As some of the posters stated, you can get an education of your choice along the way.
Either way, don’t settle for being one of Thoreau’s ants.
It’s because we considered this very thing that we decided we’d rather give our disposable income to a college than to contractors, car dealerships, credit card payments, realtors, local government (in the form of property taxes), hotels and airlines, and banks (in the form of interest on borrowed money). I’m at peace with spending money on college. Who knows what the future will bring. If I get Alzheimer’s or some other expensive wasting illness in my old age, I’m not going to have any money to bequeath heirs anyway. So I might as well spend it on their education while I’ve got it.
It’s all about choices. Personally, I think people who spend big $$ on sports cars are nuts (where can you drive a car like that like it is meant to be driven?) personally, I wouldn’t wear a 5 carat diamond if you GAVE it to me (I don’t care for jewelry). And I ended up on the jumbotron at an NBA playoff game b/c I took a book. (The tixs were free in that case, but person next to me paid $700 for the seat). But I am more than happy to be paying for my kid to go to a pricey private university because I find it valuable. My $$, my choice
If only Bill Chace would come back and tell this to the tons of instructors at Emory who playb into the consumerism…oh wait, that would be impossible because the issue isn’t a problem with individuals’ backbones so much as it systemic. The tenure and teacher evaluation system kind of help to exacerbate this issue and I am unsure as to what could be a viable solution because it is too hard to get these academic jobs (professorships…saturated), and also not easy to get solid jobs after spending a fortune on an education. The two play into each other. The student wants or needs high grades (especially if going to an elite) if they want all of that money put in to pay off, and the instructor needs to hold on to their job whose teaching requirements basically say “get passable or good evaluations” and then focus on the stringent research productivity requirements. This is code for: “do not put much effort into teaching if it sacrifices research, release a firehose on your course’s content if necessary to satisfy your students, and then make sure that you at least sound decent when lecturing”. I think the current environment just causes both sides to be in a state of desperation where they just both lower their expectations so as to preserve their career outlooks. I do wonder if it is chicken and egg though. Perhaps if tenure requirements (or measurement of whether or not they’ve been fulfilled) and rankings (where the “output” metrics actually measure the input, the quality of students you put in) were changed, maybe “real” teaching can occur on a broader scale and things like grades would just go back down across the board (at all schools) such that it is not potentially damaging to receive or provide more meaningful and rigorous learning opps in the classroom, because right now it hardly means anything. Courses are to put A’s (and B’s depending on the discipline) on people’s transcript and the only “meaningful” learning will come through extracurricular and networking. Colleges (especially elite ones) provide awesome educations, just not necessarily in the classroom.