Is college overrated?

Parents Forum
281

<p>@BBD -</p>

<p>I tend to agree with you to a certain extent. I’m not big on declaring limitations based on intelligence.</p>

<p>However, after reading this my first inclination was to actually look at a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics.</p>

<p>Maybe you’re a mathematician. I have technical degrees (granted, they’re undergraduate degrees and over 25 years old - and I hardly use the material regularly) </p>

<p>I can state without much shame that I have great difficulty following something like this in any meaningful way:</p>

<p><a href=“http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_mathematics/v131/131.1.gorodnik.pdf[/url]”>http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_mathematics/v131/131.1.gorodnik.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Maybe if I went back to school and studied math, but at the present I certainly could not just read through this and explain the steps without a huge amount of research, and likely tedious one on one assistance from someone smarter than I am. And if I’m honest, I don’t know if I could ever really understand it well.</p>

<p>Maybe you can, but I don’t think it necessarily invaldiates a person’s opinion if they are unable to grasp something like this.</p>

282

<p>“Maybe if I went back to school and studied math,”</p>

<p>but thats the point, isn’t it? The whole debate is nature vs nurture. Murray isn’t saying he can’t follow it cause he didn’t get a Phd in Math. He is saying, IIUC, that he is genetically not capable of it. </p>

<p>My last math course was calculus, and that was decades ago. I cannot NOW follow a high level math proof. But I do not think I am genetically constrained from doing so.</p>

<p>And note, I am NOT saying every human being on God’s green earth is GENETICALLY capable of following a high level math proof. I do think, though, that anyone who is practicing the more quantitative social sciences should be the kind of person who is CAPABLE, at least, of a fairly high level of math. Thats all. So I made my snark. I think its fairly ironic that a man who largely made his fame on a work that was intrinsically quantitative, and that was widely critiqued IIRC on methodological grounds, is confessing to genetic math limits personally.</p>

283

<p>I mean I can’t read Japanese either. I am quite sure I could if I studied it.</p>

284

<p>^^^
Like I wrote, I am not big on genetic constraints on the ability to learn. In fact, I believe a lot more goes into intelligence, and therefore whether someone would be able to understand something like this. There’s all the nature and nurture components.</p>

<p>I used to believe anybody could be taught anything. After several years tutoring the kids of friends and family through high school and college science and math, I tempered that a bit. I now believe most people do not challenge themselves to the extent they should. I also believe the strict tie of “ability to learn” to IQ is overblown. </p>

<p>But on the fringes, I no longer believe that everyone is capable of getting a PhD in math. I probably am not capable of getting a PhD in math. Having looked at some of the USAMO math problems, for high school kids, I am convinced there are many of them I would never be able to solve. However, I believe pretty much anybody could probably be tutored to get over 700 on the Math SAT, given enough time and effort. That’s just my belief.</p>

<p>Of course, since I’m not smart enough to get a PhD in Math, I could be wrong. :)</p>

285

<p>

</p>

<p>First and second-hand. I went to university to be 'educated", and Dr. Johnson’s concept of a Renaissance Man appealed to me. I found out very quickly (second year) that things are not that simple. </p>

<p>When I spend all night doing a math problem and found out the next day I got it all wrong was disturbing enough, but, even after the instructor solved it elegantly on the board, I still could not figure out what I did wrong was more than humbling.</p>

<p>The most difficult subject I studied in the humanities was undoubtedly Classical Chinese. It was extremely time-consuming, but I could do it. Not so with physics or math beyond a certain level. I knew then and there that it was the best I could do. So, when I see this in Murray’s third article, I can not help but smile to myself.

</p>

<p>How can I not smile?</p>

286

<p>

</p>

<p>I was actually joking, but I have to say I am very impressed by your honesty. And believe me, I can tell you from first hand experience, you aren’t the only one who had this type of experience.</p>

287

<p>Murray earned his first degree from Harvard in history, I believe. His PHD was from MIT in political science. He probably took intermediate or advanced statistics as part of his doctoral program and found himself lacking on that score.</p>

<p>The most math-focused social science is probably economics, but even that is child’s play comparing to, for example, theoretical physics. About two decades ago, they held a meeting at the Aspen Centre for physical and social scientists that did not go very well. Apparently when the economists were explaining their economic models to physical scientists, physicist and Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson, after patiently listening for a while, asked the economists if “you guys really believe that stuff?”. LOL. Lawrence Summers apparently was accusing physicists of having a Tarzan Syndrome…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually there is a high degree of consensus in psychometrics. We can actually read up that stuff in textbooks. The detractors tend to come from the less quantitative disciplines. The most famous among them are Stephen Jay Gould and Howard Gardner. The weaknesses of their position is that they can not come up with quantitative data to augment their position. Gardner went as far as to say that his theory of multiple intelligence is not meant to be tested. I begin to wonder if we are talking science, or religion?</p>

288

<p>brooklynborndad: yes, the irony is astounding!!!</p>

289

<p>

</p>

<p>To do so would require an extensive dataset along with strong methodological tools, i.e. a set of instrumental variables or Heckman selection specifications, to establish causality. If you would like to do that, be my guest.</p>

290

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe the point being made is that usefulness lies on a spectrum: that some majors are more useful - however defined- than are others. College is not costless. Society pays, whether it is the student, the taxpayers, or the school itself through its financial aid budget, or some combination of all three, not to mention the opportunity cost of removing the student from the workforce and of the professor’s time teaching those students. The social value of a major should be commensurate to its social cost. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, the fact is, schools periodically eliminate majors. For example, my old school - which shall remain unnamed - eliminated the mining engineering major, despite the fact that the school was originally founded as a mining engineering school, some of the landmarks and buildings around campus still bear the names of the old mining school. One argument was that there weren’t enough students majoring in mining engineering to justify the program: an absurd argument considering that there weren’t exactly a lot of students majoring in, say, Scandinavian Languages, and yet nobody proposed eliminating that major. Another argument was that mining is an economically declining industry, ignoring the fact that the BLS has projected mining engineering as a “faster than average” growth employment field and the fact that the market for plenty of humanities majors (such as Scandinavian Languages) ain’t exactly the most vibrant. </p>

<p>If schools can terminate engineering programs, I don’t see why they can’t also terminate humanities programs. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe we can and do accomplish the same weeding simply through admissions. Let’s face it: the vast majority of students at a top 5-10 undergrad program can almost certainly be admitted to some law school, even if only a 4th tier law school. The only question for them is the ranking of the law school that they can win admission to, not whether they can go to law school at all. Law schools - at least the lower-tier ones - can therefore simply invoke comparable admissions schemes that the top 5-10 undergrad programs do now. </p>

<p>Where I can agree that the undergrad program might add value is with those students who performed poorly in high school, but blossomed in college. But surely we can agree that anybody who is admitted to HYPS is not illiterate.</p>

291

<p>

</p>

<p>I am who I am. Reality simply is. Raised in the British tradition meant that I never accept the notion that “all men are created equal”, but that “some are more equal than others”. ;)</p>

<p>SAT math, while still on the topic, has too low a ceiling. It should show a score distribution similar to that of the verb portion. I think it is done this way to protect the scions of the ruling elite, nothing more. </p>

<p>Murray would have a higher standing in my eyes, if he were not such a lackey of the same, but I guess he has to eat too.</p>

292

<p>So, what’s the solution? Eradicating those people with an IQ of 99 or less? Sterilizing them? Or do we keep them around because we need people for the low skill/no skill jobs?</p>

293

<p>"It’s sad – tragic even – that we have culturally abandoned technical and vocational education in our public schools in favor of the ubiquitous “college prep” curriculum, typically with a lower “track” for underperformers. They graduate high school with no academic preparation – and no vocational preparation either. We have also, culturally, moved toward an implicit demeaning of vocational work – plumber, electrician, car mechanic, etc. – even though such trades provide good incomes and lifestyles. Few teachers tell their students to look at the local community college’s program in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning repair, but instead routinely encourage unprepared students to pursue bachelor degree-level study for which they are horribly unprepared. Two years down the road, they are $25,000 in debt, have dropped out, and are working in a fast food restaurant, when they could have been completing a course of vocational study that would provide a lifetime of income and security. It’s good that the President’s plan calls for increased community college enrollments, but I hope it comes with a cultural shift in which we re-learn to give the respect to vocational workers that they deserve, so these fields will be attractive to students again.</p>

<p>So, yes, for many students, college is overrated. Part of high school should be inculcating students with the very certain fact that the rest of their lives will be filled with work – generating income – and paying bills, and that there are satisfying ways to do that that do not include a 4-year college degree, and that not all 4-year college degrees will guarantee a livable income."</p>

<p>This is SO true and especially the part about the “implicit demeaning of vocational work.”</p>

<p>My husband is in the trades (HVAC) and nobody can tell me there isn’t what cannot be denied, is just plain old snobbery, when it comes to the difference in perception of one of his sheet metal workers or someone with a degree or the kind of job that requires a degree.</p>

<p>Some of his guys are, admittedly, not much advanced in knowledge of liberal arts, but they have knowledge, wisdom, and skills in other areas. THEY ARE NOT STUPID. They just weren’t interested in academics. Lots of really intelligent people are not interested in academics. </p>

<p>I know some real bozos who have that parchment and get along in life on account of privilege mostly due to plain dumb luck, the circumstances of their birth, and the connections of their family.</p>

<p>But there is absolutely a difference in the reaction to a high school senior who tells you s/he is going to Well Known Top Tier School and one who tells you they are taking welding at the community college.</p>

<p>Since our society would change significantly and for the worse without skilled tradesmen, and since most history professors or upper level managers or other highly respected types would <em>probably</em> not be able to install their airconditioner and also fabricate and then install the ductwork and then wire it all up, why is it we assume one is “smarter” than the other? It’s a different <em>kind</em> of intelligence and one is not inherently more noble or admirable than another.</p>

<p>Granted, intelligence levels vary greatly from one individual to another, but we are doing a serious disservice to everyone in this country by this insistence that everyone needs a broadly based college degree for the sake of learning, and then viewing those who don’t do it as inferior by default. Then we turn around and say get a degree for the sake of getting a job.</p>

<p>Which is it, learning for learning’s sake, or getting a job?</p>

<p>We need intellectuals and academics who major in things that have no real practical application (philosophy? Literature? except to turn around and teach it…which is circular…) because that sort of wide thinking serves a useful purpose. Sure it does. We also need people in this country who can do skilled labor and you don’t need 12 credits of social science, 6 credits of English, 8 credits of lab science, and 6 credits of math to do that.</p>

<p>It is tragic and it hurts us as individuals and as a society. The stigma of not choosing a 4 (or more) year university degree needs to go away.</p>

<p>I do feel every child who WANTS that should have every opportunity. But we need to quit viewing it as the one best highest route for everyone and anything else, by default, being inferior and the clear mark of someone who is in some way LESS.</p>

294

<p>Great auto mechanics are also great problem-solvers and reasoners. My wife uses segments of Car Talk to demonstrate the critical features of excellent reasoning. It is also true that often it is not academic ability, but interest that leads one into “the trades.” We sometime lose sight of the fact that work should also be about fun and bring personal enjoyment. The Car Talk guys appear to love what they do and that, along with their skill, is what makes their show so good. They are also well educated, the two are not mutually exclusive.

</p>

<p>My wife often makes the point that much of the reasoning and problem-solving that are increasingly emphasized in schools has been a part of “vocational” education for a long time.</p>

295

<p>Many of you have already said this, but I think that the value of a college degree has definitely decreased in the sense that it has become a requirement for a job that might not really need skills learned at a college. It’s not a great feeling doing a large amount of work for a degree that means almost nothing… </p>

<p>In some ways it means that the degree is worth less because it is now easier to obtain than in the past, but the only difference in the actual required knowledge/education for the job compared to the past is the amount of time it takes to obtain the same degree. However, this delay overrates further education beyond the “easy to obtain” degree, but regardless of how overrated college may be, it seems to be more necessary than it was in the past.</p>

<p>This is a somewhat old article, but I think it reflects this discussion well.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/pope_articles/the_overselling_of_higher_education_report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/pope_articles/the_overselling_of_higher_education_report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

296

<p>to those who consider college “overrated” and “unnecessary”: great. don’t send your kids to college. that way there’ll be more space available for those kids who want to be there!</p>

297

<p>"Actually there is a high degree of consensus in psychometrics. We can actually read up that stuff in textbooks. The detractors tend to come from the less quantitative disciplines. The most famous among them are Stephen Jay Gould and Howard Gardner. "</p>

<p>I do not have time to review every paper referenced here, but there is apparently some disagreement about the extent of the consensus [The</a> Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“The Bell Curve - Wikipedia”>The Bell Curve - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Steven Jay Gould was clearly capable of doing quantitative work [Punctuated</a> equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium]Punctuated”>Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia) despite the assertion that evolutionary biology is “less quanititative than psychometrics” The Gardner quote sounds out of context to me. </p>

<p>Economics is clearly an area where modeling has to deal with the inherent unpredictability and complexity of human beings (including the fact that economic models themselves impact expectations) and the difficulty in running experiments, even in microeconomics. I am not sure psychometrics escapes that difficulty.</p>

298

<p>College is such a great experience but life isnt over if you don’t go.</p>

299

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that actually speaks to the crux of the problem: even if you do believe that college is overrated and unnecessary, you still can’t reasonably decide not to partake simply because you know that other people won’t join you, and your decision not to adhere with the crowd will therefore be interpreted as a negative signal to the market.</p>

<p>That’s a pervasive and baleful outcome of economic sociology as it has to do with network effects such that succumbing to peer pressure regarding an activity you disagree with is sadly often times the rational choice. For example, you may personally believe that Microsoft Windows and Office are overrated and buggy software products for which there are a number of viable alternatives. But the fact is, most employers have standardized upon a Microsoft-laden PC and will expect you to know how to use it. Hence, you’re forced to learn Microsoft skills whether you like it or not. {Even now, employees with Macs are often times considered to be alien interlopers who impose unnecessary helpdesk burdens upon the corporate IT staff.} Microsoft takes advantage of the inability of employees and employers to coordinate to stop using Microsoft software in favor of competing products.</p>

300

<p>For me, college means debt that I’ll be trying to pay off the rest of my life.</p>

<p>My private student loans are overwhelming. It wasn’t worth it!</p>

<p>College, overall, helps you mature, become a better writer, be better skilled, learn about life, and overall improve your mental capacity. It helped me land jobs.</p>