<p>I am absolutely shocked to see intelligent people buying into these popular articles being written by people who are, by profession, trained to write a bunch of crap (of course I'm talking about journalists). I find the suggestion that someone should not attempt to be educated as completely absurd and I think it's crazy to see that it's even being published. Ignorance in society provides a breeding ground for several of our worst traits. Dehumanization is what comes out of not knowing the truth about the genetics between racial groups, it's what comes out of not knowing of other religious and philosophical perspectives, and is also the result of simply being utterly unable to think critically (or to be a little nicer, as critically as you could). Racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other types of oppression are all rooted from ignorance.</p>
<p>A lot of people say that liberal arts degrees are of no use. A ridiculous statement to make because, regardless of your major, no degree program is 'easy' because every program requires you to do some amount of work, put in some amount of effort, and we would all like to think that it requires you to grow, if not academically, then socially and morally. The U.S. has been blessed (although sometimes it feels like a curse) to have universities with general education requirements. The liberal arts majors hate the mathematics and science classes, and vice-versa. Both types of classes require critical thought and of course some classes require more skill in a certain area than others and are thus 'easier', but like I tried to convince earlier, no degree is easy. Even a women's studies major gives a different perspective for one to challenge their [possibly] sheltered or rigid beliefs and perspectives that they've brought with them. A society that doesn't build its foundations with educated citizens is a society waiting to implode.</p>
<p>I understand that there is an abundance of people here who know or are related to someone who have just decided that college 'isn't for them'. Well, obviously that sort of environment can't suit everyone perfectly, but these are outliers and I hope nobody starts pointing to them and saying, 'Are you saying they're not being useful members of society?' because they do not represent a majority. What I'm speaking against is this sudden outburst against academic institutions in favor for ...alternatives. I can't see another institution or occupation that will offer you the same skills, perspectives, and personal growth as an academic institution will. Without this necessary knowledge of different perspectives (which, by its very nature, breeds critical thought processes), society is corrupted and we're all f'ed.</p>
<p>I mean.. am I the only one going srsly ***?</p>
<p>The reason people write about promoting alternatives is because many people are having a difficult time financing even public higher education, and many students simply are being pushed into going to college due to it being considered “something that everyone does” regardless of whether they’re really ready for it. Part of the problems is caused by colleges themselves and poor training by secondary education institutions. I’d like this solved, but alternatives could still benefit a large portion of society. Even nations that have significantly higher portions of the populations receiving post-secondary degrees have some form of compulsory and optional schooling to accommodate different types of students.</p>
<p>I largely agree with the OP, and I’d add that I feel what degree is <em>useful</em> or valuable* depends on the final objective. Is it to be knowledgable about a topic? To teach? To earn big career money? Different degrees help accomplish different objectives, and all are accomplishments.</p>
<p>I also for the most part agree, but I think it’s a huge mistake to think that “all kids” need to go to college as if college were grade 13,14,15 and 16. I think there is a proportionate amount of kids that head off that aren’t ready emotionally, aren’t ready intellectually and aren’t committed to the concept. But, those kids tend to “filter” out anyway and find the different path.</p>
<p>Even those who don’t end up getting formal education will find a way to be successful in their own regard. However, I think they are still missing a vital cure to a certain amount of ignorance that inherently comes with a limited perspective. Of course there are outliers even in this group, those who have a natural inclination to learn freely about anything and everything, though I don’t see this as sufficient really. I’ll take myself as an example (in doing so, I hope I’m not seeming arrogant since that’s not my intention). I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent student with a passion for learning, but I always find myself making assumptions and being ignorant of things… and for some odd reasons, I have these realizations in those ‘useless’ humanities classes (I always realize their usefulness later, though). I realize this and I have to ask how a total nerd like myself who reads just about every book on anything and everything can still be so ignorant, even in a purely intellectual environment. More importantly, I think, is the question of how a person who is not in an intellectual environment can keep from being much more ignorant than one who is. I freely admit to my ignorance and I’d say that ignorance is what drives me to learn. I would say that it’s the fault of the academic institutions who don’t make this a first priority (pure academic education, that is). I see universities putting so much emphasis on social aspects and career goals, both of which are good and practical things to emphasize, but I think there should be a higher priority.</p>
<p>Could these mismatched priorities be the cause of certain peoples’ dislike and instability in that sort of environment? But every college has its own feel… so it’s possible that some are simply unaware or unable to finance an education in these environments where they’d be more stable in. Maybe the U.S. ought to be more socialist in their approach to education (now I know I have to be stepping on some toes here). I think that I wouldn’t be too outlandish in saying that there is always, always, an alternative to the ridiculous fifth-of-a-million education.</p>
<p>Anyway, my intention was never to look down on people with no formal education, but to express my opinion on the importance of a formal education which, I think, should be the highest priority for any society as well as each individual in that society.</p>
<p>“Ignorance” is a difficult thing to quantify. Almost any experience will yield some sort of additional knowledge or understanding. I might argue that spending time on a “blue-collar” job yields a greater understanding for those who perform manual labor. Does that mean that nobody should go to college until after spending a few years on the job? Of course not, because everyone has their own individual needs.</p>
<p>Absolutes are never helpful. It is indeed wrongheaded to suggest that we should all skip higher education and pursue… whatever it is they want us to pursue. Just as it is wrong to suggest that everyone needs to attend a 4-year college.</p>
<p>Limited perspective is well limited. It could be said that as example starting in a manufacturing plant on the line for several years and then attending college for a degree in engineering or supply chain mangement or logistics or accounting or any number of degrees makes for one attractive resume. The issue is that for so many kids the expectation is that they head for college three months after high school graduation and that is not necessarily a good solution or a good outcome for some. I’m all about college education and think it enriches life far beyond the raw costs but I’m also opposed to the thinking that it MUST begin three months out of high school for all young people as if they are moving on to grade 13.</p>
<p>It is difficult for parents to be “open” to alternatives these days. For many of us older parents, our parents delayed college because of World War II or achieved degrees older because they needed to work to save money to afford college or simply because not as many parents went to college. We look at our children and say “of course they are heading for college after high school.”</p>
<p>I teach transitional (euphemism for remedial) reading and writing at a community college. Not everyone should go to college. Not everyone has the ability to be successful in college. Taxpayers are shelling out big bucks for public school; then they pick up most of the bill for students who attend community colleges and other state -supported schools by subsidizing tuition–not to mention the taxpayer funded financial aid. I would love to see the cost figures for students who have to take transitional classes over and over before they finally drop out and what it really costs society.</p>
<p>Everyone should not go to college. Everyone should have a chance, but no multiple chances at taxpayer expense. And I am a liberal!</p>
<p>I agree with MD Mom.
I think community colleges should have higher standards.
Community colleges should have more students older than 22 than just finished highschool kids.</p>
<p>MD Mom you make a good point. I would think that the benefits of using taxpayer money to get people who otherwise would not be educated an education is well worth the cost of the ‘dropouts’. I understand that some people just can’t get through the rigorous nature of college, but I’m not sure if these people are, in the grand scheme of things, relevant. What I’m basically saying is, you always have the cost of doing business. If you have sources that say otherwise, you’re welcome to post.</p>
<p>In response to absolute ignorance, yes I agree that working with absolutes is ridiculous because, as in my case, no one can even know, much less be aware or conscious of, everything. However, the breadth of study in academic institutions gives the opportunity for learning of different perspectives, which is much more than a lot of people who may even be very successful in their careers can say. I think that it is never wrong to say that everyone must be educated, which is different from saying that one must go to a certain kind of institution.</p>
<p>Also I agree that high school graduates should not have to continue to university immediately, though I do think that it is good to encourage this because an older person (I’m in the realm of conjecture here since I’m not an older person) might not see the need to be formally educated as much as a younger person would (there are obvious reasons for this).</p>
<p><a href=“I’m%20in%20the%20realm%20of%20conjecture%20here%20since%20I’m%20not%20an%20older%20person”>quote</a> might not see the need to be formally educated as much as a younger person would (there are obvious reasons for this).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which assumes that there is compelling need to have collegiate education. There are professions that require additional training and education but not necessarily “collegiate” education. Some of those professions have the ability to generate substantial income, personal growth etc. and some of the people in those professions have collegiate degrees. But those are cases of people “wanting” the degree as opposed to “needing” the degree. Anyone who “wants” a degree has the ability to obtain one if they are qualified. I do not think it is accurate to think that eveyrone “needs” the degree to have enriched intellect or a stable societal position. It is not in the interest of anyone to insist that young people have a “need” for a degree, it should be a “want”. As MD Mom points out not every young person belongs in college by ability which is another factor separate from want or need.</p>
<p>Most likely older people that don’t “see the need” understand this concept that might not be clear to a young person who has only known the experience of being in classes since age 5. Finally you have to want to be in college to succeed. Simply being there because you think you “need” to be there or you are being told you need to be there is a recipe for not finishinig and yes a waste of taxpayer dollars when the student doesn’t finish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can agree and understand the sentiment of the original post I cannot buy into the concept that there are no other alternatives to gaining comparable skills, perspective and personal growth. Career military personnel and many other paths can also allow individuals to gain skills, perspective and personal growth. I can’t even agree that all students leave the collegiate education with the “same” skills, perspectives and personal growth.</p>
<p>I am not against anybody opinion about college. some go for fun, some go for prestigious name, some go to get educated some go to get skills to support themselves and others decided it is not for them. Why should I care one way or another about reasons for any of it? Some like to bash education all together, they like to bash most that they do not agree with. In my family, we go to college to get professional skills, this is the only thing that is important to me. I would not support my child who would decide to go for something that is not available of job market. I would not bash people who think otherwise. I am free to spend my $$ the way I want, and so are they.</p>
<p>imo here’s an error of hadsed, post 7 : “I see universities putting so much emphasis on social aspects and career goals, both of which are good and practical things to emphasize, but I think there should be a higher priority.” What hadsed calls a “pure academic education” is not a higher proirity. It is a different priority.
Knowing how to design a better punch press is of no value to a production worker. Being able to run one efficiently is of little value to a mechanical engineer. A teacher of art history needs neither training. A philosopher has little need for either training. Each individual has worth, and needs different training depending on their desires. Value isn’t defined simply as how much is learned, how much can be applied, or how much one earns.
Permanent student and perpetual academic learning may be hadsed’s goal in life in his effort to be less ignorant; but others may have different goals that are no less worthy.
I don’t see his view as arrogant, but I see it as limited. It seems as momof3 said, like it might be the view of a person that has only known being in classes since he was 5.</p>
<p>Yes, well one of the points to make to that post 7 is that one of the most valuable aspects of an education in the US is that there are all sort of different colleges and universities that emphasize all sorts of things. To make generalizations is to not understand the system. Don’t like football, go to UofChicago or any one of the dozens of colleges/unis that have empty football stadiums on Saturday afternoon. Don’t like the social aspect go to a commuter college, don’t like career oriented colleges go to an LAC where a huge chunk of the graduates head to graduate school and there isn’t a real “career” emphasis. It’s wonderful that there is a fit for every kid. When I hear people make blanket statements I assume they are either at the wrong college or went to the wrong college. Too many kids under-rate culture for other variables then bemoan or denounce the emphasis given to other aspects of the collegiate experience.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly reasonable for you to say that I have a limited view since I’ve never truly been away from an academic lifestyle. However I think you’re forgetting the points in my original post because those points actually prove why a pure academic environment should be a number one priority. I’m wondering now if you (younghoss) agreed with my first post or not, because if you did then I can’t quite see how you can disagree with the latter notion.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, you should care about these things because you are a member of a society. By not caring to encourage others to pursue an education, you are doing a disservice to the current and future generations of the society.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, I forgot about the military. A college education doesn’t give you nearly the types of skills and experiences that being in the military would give you. That being said, I did say most careers. Other than the military, I still can’t think of too many other situations in which your career would give you the same amount of perspective and the same breadth of knowledge. I also did not denounce social and career goals and never said they shouldn’t be priorities (also would like to ask where exactly I’ve made any generalizations about schools), but rather that there should be a higher priority. There are many problems in the world that, as I mentioned in my first post, could be cured (I think) with a little more understanding. Knowledge is the basis for understanding, I would say.</p>
<p>Also… it seems like I’ve offended a few people with my ‘old people’ comment. These comments came after I gave the hint that I’m a college student (unsurprisingly)…</p>
No, you don’t prove much of anything. The original post is almost entirely made up of claims without warrants. You never actually provide evidence supporting the conclusion that knowledge erases intolerance. Nor do you show that all courses teach valuable material simply by virtue of being offered in an academic setting.</p>
<p>You are more than entitled to your opinions, and I find them very interesting. However, let’s not mix up proof and opinion.</p>
<p>I do not agree a pure academic education should be #1 priority.
Your post 1 does not prove that statement.
It is far too broad of a generalization to be correct as is. I might agree it’s right for you, but not for all. Perhaps I want to cure the sick. I need to complete college to earn that m.d. degree. Your statement would indicate I’m wrong because my college example is essentially job training.
Maybe I want to make a big paycheck by managing a company efficiently. Your statement would indicate I’m wrong because my college example shows my degree might open managerial doors.
Even many of today’s highly educated politicians are being accused of intolerance. At the moment it’s (alleged) elitist politicians ignoring the wishes of the people they are hired to represent. There are many complaints now of those trying to help run the government that have only academia without real, practical experience. There are complaints of those running the gov’t that have always been politicians, and are without real-world working experience. A think tank composed only of similar thinking people is generally considered doomed to failure. Every one going to college solely for the desire to be more aware of more topics would be disastrous. If we all attended schools just for the lofty goal of learning more, then who’d be in gov’t? Who’d work a farm? Who’d make shoes? Who’d run trains? Who would even teach in college if all were attending college?
You may not desire to graduate and get a job, you may wish to keep on learning from college. Others may feel differently.
And by the way, I am not one of those offended by the phrase old people- I understand the point of view of a college kid. You see, I was once a high-schooler, a college kid, a young adult, a not-so-young adult, and now a college kid again at 50. Please don’t be offended by my calling your opinion limited. You see, I’ve been there, done that, and much more too, giving me a broader and fairer perspective than the typical collegiate.</p>
<p>I think you’re misunderstanding. The suggestion that everyone should attend college for their entire lives is not at all what I’m trying to say (nor is it my life goal, in a literal sense at least).</p>
<p>Also, I don’t quite understand how academic experience can not help a politician make decisions. I can concede that they need some real world experience, but this is true in almost every profession. Medical graduates go through residency for four years before they’re even truly [independent] physicians. The intolerance being presented by politicians is a direct result from not knowing what the hell they’re talking about. Some idiot senator from Texas I believe suggested that as pay-back to the terrorists for 9/11, we should bomb the Muslim holy city of Mecca. How insane of a proposition for anyone to make, much less one of the leaders of our country. Of course I’m making a huge exaggeration; this man is a complete moron and should not be put in the same group as the good politicians that do their jobs well. However I just use this to bring some of the issues I mean by my statements to light.</p>
<p>As for the proof, well it’s not really proof proof, but it’s a very crude, non-rigorous and general explanation for why the bad things that happen in the world because of human nature is rooted in ignorance. If you disagree in any way with my post, I’d love to be able to at least defend my views, but at the moment we can’t argue anything.</p>