<p>PBS - That family member actually sounds like someone I’d love to chat with. Even if you’re not in the field or have no personal interest in it, you can learn a lot from people who are that enthusiastic. The information may never be directly applicable to your life, but neither is 99% of what you learn in college. However, accumulate enough tidbits of knowledge and you become a better, more expansive thinker.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe true for YOU, but what I learned in college was largely *very *applicable to my life.</p>
<p>Re: #60</p>
<p>Some people seem to answer the question in terms of the amount of wealth accumulated. But then they can argue about how much is “enough”.</p>
<p>Others seem to answer the question in terms of whether one acquires the wealth “ethically” versus in a manner that is considered “unethical” or “cheating” (fraud, deception, theft, lobbying for rule changes to protect one’s market position by blocking new competitors, not preventing or cleaning up pollution and other negative externalities, etc.). But then people can argue about the definition of what is “ethical” and “unethical”.</p>
<p>OP,
"I’m just a senior heading off to college in the fall so I don’t actually know what I’m talking about…but I’d be interested to hear what you all think. "
-What I think is that I would like to have a question before I can answer it or I would like to see the issue before I can express my opinion. There is no question and there is no issue here…
In terms of shallow or whatever, there is time to be shallow and there is time to be deep, there is time to waste and there is time to get pushed to the limits. I do not see anything wrong with desire to be rich. Societies that blame everyhting on “rich” do not live very well which is supported by many historical facts and there is no single successful one that supports the idea of re-distribution being a good thing. There is no single example of society that successfully proclaimed that everybody will have the same, “the same” becomes “very low” as ambitious will stop trying or will leave to another place and there are many many historical evidences of that.<br>
So, what is exact question/concern?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Applicable in this sense means direct functionality. I doubt you make your bread quoting Freud in your day to day life. Nor do you cite Descartes. They do influence your decision-making and thought process, but so does listening to a lawyer ramble about RJR Nabisco, or a historian about the Battle of Carrhae. Unless you’re in vocational school, engineering school or a math-related field, very strong chances are what you’ve spent 4 years learning in school is not directly applicable to what you do. That’s all I meant - people get ridiculously touchy over how much their college experience was “worth”.</p>
<p>^^^^No, I was a nursing major. Most of what I learned in college is DIRECTLY applicable to my career. And I’m not touchy at all, I just don’t think it’s good to generalize. Not everyone majors in philosophy or history, though certainly with a 4 year degree, one will be required to study some things which are not used in a practical way every day at work. Education is never a waste, however, and while I am not well versed in Freud, psychology studies have actually been useful in my career.</p>
<p>Was the majority of your undergrad nursing courses? If not, it wasn’t “most”. I know that’s not the case for the nursing curriculum at my school.</p>
<p>Regardless, You’re still yanking one sentence out of context and beating on the fact that it’s a generalization. My point was that listening and learning random facts and foibles from people is just as valuable as the majority of classes you take in college. Emphasis on the word <em>valuable</em>, meaning that it is beneficial. Somehow you twisted that statement in your mind into “humanities are pointless”, also ignoring the fact that you don’t have to be a humanities major to take humanities courses… Maybe you should’ve read the next sentence of my post which was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak to the ‘intellectuals’ you know, but as an academic, who is married to one and who knows a million, this doesn’t ring true at all. Those of us who went this route and succeeded were really into and passionate about the topic at hand, the research we do. For the most part, it doesn’t pay well, it is tough to get a job (ANY job) in the field, and you hardly feel ‘respected’ or like you have ‘power’ when you are surrounded by people just like yourself. In fact, I’m almost positive that anyone who tried to go this route for some kind of external gain either dropped out or hasn’t been successful (for a wide host of reasons, 99% of the motivation it takes is internal).</p>
<p>But hey, if this kind of thing makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead make it up. To the extent you can put others down to your level, it will restore your esteem. I guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not beating on anything. You said that “99%” of what you learn in college is not directly applicable to your life. That’s simply not true in my experience. I’m sorry that the fact that I disagree with your premise upsets you.</p>
<p>Comparing Goldman Sachs to Al Capone. God I love the “rational” perspective I encounter when coming on this forum. Let’s take it a step further, aren’t hedge fund managers on the same level as the Manson family.</p>