Study: People Disagree on Purpose of College

<p>College costs way too much to be just for “personal growth”. Not everyone is rich and can afford to go to these expensive schools just to learn for the heck of it. That’s what a library is for.</p>

<p>When you live in a place with a good library system (but with an inadequate higher education system), you would just do research everyday on your own without getting a real degree. This is what one of my friends did…</p>

<p>Which is why, imo, college is over-rated - unless you can be a doctor or something like that.</p>

<p>Opinion from a college-educated parent: I have to say that I think a majority of college is about learning, maturing and expanding your intellect. Yes, it’s helpful for honing in on work, but grad school, in my opinion, seems to be the place to focus in on direct skills associated with whatever line of work you wish to pursue</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If a college education had zero utility in getting a (better) job (this includes improving the chances of success in self-employment or starting one’s own business), then it would be an expensive luxury available only to those from very wealthy families.</p>

<p>Yes, it is about enrichment and learning, but that does not exclude other things, including improving one’s job and career prospects. (Of course, all of these goals are dependent on the student’s commitment to learning – far too many just slide by without learning much. And medical and law school admissions policies discourage students from exploring “difficult” courses or areas.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>However, sometimes entrepreneurs get ideas because they see (as employees) how the way companies and employees do things can be improved in some way.</p>

<p>And what they learned in school can help them turn the idea into a business.</p>

<p>

This is certainly the view expressed in that bar scene in Good Will Hunting. But in reality libraries are not a great place to be educated. For three reasons:
-Going to the library and studying independently requires a great deal of personal motivation. Attending classes and doing assignments in college does not.<br>
-Reading books, though educating, is a one-way street. How many people will, on their own accord, write a critical reflection of a text they just read?<br>
-A lot of learning comes in a dialogue. It could be in section, or office hours, or in an online class forum. You don’t get that in a library. </p>

<p>I hear people all the time say they’ll learn CS, for instance, by watching online lectures from the CS faculty at Stanford. That’s great-- if one is willing to watch all the lectures, do the assignments that the regular students complete, and struggle through difficulties entirely on one’s own. </p>

<p>This is not to discount reading as an educational tool. Reading has many proven benefits. But, for many, it is not the best way to receive an education.</p>

<p>Does college cost to much? I don’t think so. The cost of going to your average state university can boil down to less than $10k per year, including board and the like. I think that any academically bright student who is motivated during high school can definitely get scholarships to significantly offset that cost. I don’t think paying a total of $15k or probably less is too much for an opportunity you can only get once in your lifetime.</p>

<p>What if the student is not so academically bright or motivated?</p>

<p>I mainly would like to attend college for intellectual growth, but I think the true purpose is “both.” The proportion of each depends on what sort of things you really want to do, if you plan on going to grad/professional school, etc.</p>

<p>If going to college were just about intellectual growth, there would be no requirement to declare a major, there would be no required plan of study developed.</p>

<p>I agree that one of the important purposed or college is to open the mind up to new ideas - that is what gen ed core classes do, IMHO. That is why even though both of my kids are going into “technical” fields, they are attending/investigating schools with a good LAC gen ed core.</p>

<p>The courses required for their majors will provide employable skills. They are required for entry into their fields of interest. The gen ed classes make them more interesting and well rounded people.</p>

<p>again, JMHO</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Note that some LACs do not have much in the way of general education or core requirements. For example, there is more assurance that an MIT graduate has had a well rounded liberal arts education than an Amherst graduate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>CS is a subject that appears relatively common for people to self-educate. However, that typically involves a lot more than viewing lectures and reading books – writing computer programs and studying existing programs is typically involved (unlike in some subjects, the needed “lab equipment” (computers) is inexpensive these days). Indeed, changing technologies mean that people who work in CS jobs have to continuously self-educate to some extent.</p>

<p>However, even though self-education in CS is fairly common, only a minority of people interested in CS have strong enough motivation and self-education ability to self-educate the more fundamental knowledge of the field that is useful for future on-the-job self-education when it comes to new technologies and the like. That (and the need for a degree as a credential at many employers) means that most people interested in CS go to school to learn it.</p>

<p>Exactly - that is why both have focused on schools that provide a well rounded LAC experience. </p>

<p>Brown, Amherst, U Rochester and similar schools all give students free rein in rounding out their curriculum - this could be a blessing or a curse. An unfocused student could accumulate a random set of non-concentration courses. A focused student could end up with a very limited range of courses. But students do have the opportunity to put together an amazing portfolio of LAC courses.</p>

<p>I’m also in the both category. When I was in high school, I thought college was the only way to succeed as an African American. Getting into college would provide economic opportunities that I needed to make a living. Now that I am in college, I have found myself growing and adapting to people and my environment. Who I was freshman year is completely different from who I am now. I was the shy little kid who talked to no one and just studied. Now I’m the kid who engages in intellectual discussions with people of many races and backgrounds. I love community service and I love networking and talking to people about life. Although I have fun every once in a while, college is an academic and social experience that I think everyone should experience. As a University of Michigan student, I love the fact that I go to a large school where many different kinds of people mesh. There is a mix of brilliant people as well as unmotivated kids. You get to experience it all. With such a broad spectrum of majors to choose from and research opportunities to strive for to the amazing school pride and athletic system, this university offers the entire social and academic environment needed for success. Go Blue!</p>

<p>As a long time professor in a graduate professional program that does have a skills orientation, I’d say college should be mainly, if not exclusively, about intellectual growth–No matter what you wind up doing, you need to develop the intellectual capability and flexibility to reason your way through complex business or policy problems, use quantitative and qualitative information to find answers to these problems, and communicate your findings effectively both orally and in print. Just learning skills in programming or accounting or whatever won’t get you very far unless you understand how to use the skills to solve problems and accquire new skills as you need them. Any skill you learn in college is gonna be obsolete shortly, particularly in fast moving technical fields, so you need to learn how to learn. Based on the hundreds of students I’ve taught financial analysis and management skills to, those that have been the most successful in the job market have been those with undergraduate degrees in something else, ranging from philosophy and English to Middle Eastern studies.</p>

<p>I’d say college is half personal growth and half making the connections.</p>

<p>I’ve almost finished all my degree requirements, and if I were to take all the skills I’ve learned in college that I can actually directly apply to work, they’re all things that someone can learn with $100 of books and a couple months.</p>

<p>It’s really about learning the soft skills and gaining perspective as to gain the ability to move ahead in life much faster afterwards.</p>

<p>Also, arguably, if personal growth results in a job that pays $60k/yr instead of $30k/yr, that’ll make college worth $30k * 30yr (in the workforce), which is right under $1 mil in terms of how much it’s actually worth. That’s not even factoring in the intangibles.</p>

<p>Abridged version of my thoughts:

  1. College is education (intellectual, academic, enriching, etc.) rather than instruction (learning how to do engineering, learning how to make drinks, learning how to do accounting).
  2. What you learn at college is (almost) impossible to learn via self-study, regardless of the discipline (e.g., computer science).
  3. Success at a job sought by many graduates of major X says little about the successful individual’s ability, proclivity or interest in major X - and, possibly, vice-versa.</p>

<p>$50k a year for personal growth?..sucker born every minute…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Since when is one forced to spend $50k/year?</p>

<p>People that attend 50k a year schools, an ever increasing amount ;p</p>

<p>But seriously even if you attend college to find yourself or gain intangible skills or whatever, you better have some idea what youre going to do afterwards or you’re going to be swimming in a pile of debt for a long time.</p>

<p>I don’t think people can take that much debt if they aren’t really proved to be talented…</p>