What Price a Degree?

[Emil Miller]

Reading CITY A.M. a London business paper today, my eye fell on the following article by the editor who, if we are to believe the data given, points up a pretty bleak outlook for graduates:


By Allister Heath

October 24, 2013, 2:13am


1. In the US, over 8,000 waiters have PhDs or equivalent qualifications, as have 5,057 cleaners. Roughly 317,000 waiters have university degrees, as have 80,000 bartenders and 18,000 parking attendants. These figures have been highlighted by Richard Vedder of the University of Ohio, and are based on official statistics from 2010; today’s situation is unlikely to have improved. A similar trend is becoming visible in the UK, with more graduates having to take jobs for which they are over-qualified; and many bright, hard-working graduates from around the world work in London’s sandwich and coffee shops. A mismatch between the supply and demand of university degrees is an increasingly tragic problem

.... - See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1382577228/five-facts-about-modern-world-will-make-you-think#sthash.n1DQkmVI.dpuf

[Calidore]

Problem is, there's not much useful data given at all. A breakdown of the degrees would help; I'd be willing to bet more waiters have English or Art degrees than tech degrees. Other things can factor into success also, like personality.

[Eman Resu]

Problem is, there's not much useful data given at all. A breakdown of the degrees would help; I'd be willing to bet more waiters have English or Art degrees than tech degrees. Other things can factor into success also, like personality.


All true. At least we all know that here in the States, it's certainly not due to the fact that 31 million jobs have been sent overseas in the past three decades - and we know this because our government tells us so.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Same thing here in Canada. Lots of recent graduates end up going back to college, where a diploma will get you skills, as opposed to all the theoretical knowledge a university degree gets you.

Every job posting wants x amount of experience, which one does not get with a degree. Lots of knowledge and no skills.

[Paulclem]

In the UK it costs £9,000 a year to study - but only if you earn enough afterwards to be able to pay it back. Anyone in a low paid job will never have to pay it back.

On the other hand, a degree - and I don't mean all degrees lead to jobs, but to the training for jobs - are required to open doors to professional and many higher paid careers. Failing that, you have a well educated and hopefully informed population who potentially could fulfil future jobs in their field.

I think education is good for everyone whatever career happens or doesn't.

[Eman Resu]

In the UK it costs £9,000 a year to study - but only if you earn enough afterwards to be able to pay it back. Anyone in a low paid job will never have to pay it back.


One of the benefits not mentioned in the U.K. (and to a much smaller degree, in the U.S. in Ivy League settings) is that of the "old school tie." Balliol cufflinks and Merton stickpins have opened more doors than all the valets in the West End combined.

[Delta40]

In the UK it costs £9,000 a year to study - but only if you earn enough afterwards to be able to pay it back. Anyone in a low paid job will never have to pay it back.

On the other hand, a degree - and I don't mean all degrees lead to jobs, but to the training for jobs - are required to open doors to professional and many higher paid careers. Failing that, you have a well educated and hopefully informed population who potentially could fulfil future jobs in their field.

I think education is good for everyone whatever career happens or doesn't.

That's true here in Oz too. If you earn less than $47000 per annum then your Higher Education Debt doesn't kick in so there are a multitude of interesting jobs out there - even career at part time level and one can thrive without ever having to pay the government back so I wouldn't be too quick to put all students in the victim basket. I have two degrees and work in the public service which in Oz is packed with benefits like double super, job security and high pay but I work part time and haven't paid my $8000 debt back yet.

[JuniperWoolf]

Same thing here in Canada. Lots of recent graduates end up going back to college, where a diploma will get you skills, as opposed to all the theoretical knowledge a university degree gets you.

Every job posting wants x amount of experience, which one does not get with a degree. Lots of knowledge and no skills.

This is absolutely true. The funny thing is, one of the most vocalized "benefits" of a university education is that it will teach students to think critically. If students actually stop doing what they think they're supposed to be doing for a hot minute and think critically about university, they'd likely come to the conclusion that they're burying themselves in debt for an education that they could pick up for the price of a library card, and which will leave them overeducated and underemployed. The university trap is one of the reasons why we're called, among other things, "generation boomerang" and "generation screwed."

[OrphanPip]

I've been lucky enough with scholarships that I managed to complete 2 Bachelor degrees and a Master's without any debt.

[Paulclem]

Whether its actually a debt is a moot point. I've heard it called graduate tax, and I wonder why it would put people off trying to invest in their chosen profession/ job etc. If they don't succeed, then they don't pay it back while they are on a lower wage.

[JuniperWoolf]

That's not how it works in North America.

[mal4mac]

I'm old enough to have received free tuition, and a full grant for living expenses, in the UK. I actually saved money from it, which was very useful immediately after College. I was never in debt until I took out a mortgage, and even that was at a reasonable level, not the insane levels young people are faced with today. It seems very unfair that younger people have to get into so much debt. Why aren't older people forced to pay a "graduate tax"? Why isn't there more affordable housing? Why should should so much debt be imposed on the young?

[*Classic*Charm*]

That is absolutely not how it works here in North America. There are some scholarships to be had, if you dig them up, qualify, and apply for them. Very few people are able to get through without debt, especially students who pay their own way (without help from parents). A lot of graduate-level programs come with a stipend to lessen the blow. Government aid will allow you to put off payment until after the end of your program, but it must always be paid back in full, and many don't qualify for it in the first place (ie, if your parents make too much money, even if they aren't contributing).

[Paulclem]

I'm old enough to have received free tuition, and a full grant for living expenses, in the UK. I actually saved money from it, which was very useful immediately after College. I was never in debt until I took out a mortgage, and even that was at a reasonable level, not the insane levels young people are faced with today. It seems very unfair that younger people have to get into so much debt. Why aren't older people forced to pay a "graduate tax"? Why isn't there more affordable housing? Why should should so much debt be imposed on the young?

I reckon it's because they have no voice. I agree with the sentiments, but mention money and taxation and the arms fly. As it is, I hope kids aren't put off as it's an investment that could lead to a good career. If it doesn't, then I don't think education is wasted.


That's not how it works in North America.

Yes - the inequalities are really pronounced just from a way outsider view.

Currently our Tory party is trying to develop the "work hard, do well" myth here as if the lack of a strong work ethic and the desire to do well is the only thing that holds people back.

[Delta40]

Yes - the inequalities are really pronounced just from a way outsider view.

Currently our Tory party is trying to develop the "work hard, do well" myth here as if the lack of a strong work ethic and the desire to do well is the only thing that holds people back.

Sort of like Arbeit macht frei...

[OrphanPip]

That is absolutely not how it works here in North America. There are some scholarships to be had, if you dig them up, qualify, and apply for them. Very few people are able to get through without debt, especially students who pay their own way (without help from parents). A lot of graduate-level programs come with a stipend to lessen the blow. Government aid will allow you to put off payment until after the end of your program, but it must always be paid back in full, and many don't qualify for it in the first place (ie, if your parents make too much money, even if they aren't contributing).

Though it depends where you live in North America too. University for a Quebec resident is about 4000 a year, which was manageable for me to get through, though I did work 3 jobs simultaneously during one school year and that was a rough time. My graduate funding involves a 17,500 research grant from the federal government, I also received a 6000 dollar entry fellowship from McGill, and about 10,000 in additional funding from TAships. I work another job on the side and it provides enough to live modestly.

This is far better than it would have been for me out of province though. UoT offered me no graduate funding. McMaster and Ottawa offered me in the 17-20k range, which doesn't leave much to live off of after the 10k in tuition.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Though it depends where you live in North America too. University for a Quebec resident is about 4000 a year, which was manageable for me to get through, though I did work 3 jobs simultaneously during one school year and that was a rough time. My graduate funding involves a 17,500 research grant from the federal government, I also received a 6000 dollar entry fellowship from McGill, and about 10,000 in additional funding from TAships. I work another job on the side and it provides enough to live modestly.

This is far better than it would have been for me out of province though. UoT offered me no graduate funding. McMaster and Ottawa offered me in the 17-20k range, which doesn't leave much to live off of after the 10k in tuition.

.
Definitely true- you can't really even compare Canada and the US. Tuition for me was between 7 and 8 thousand a year (everywhere else is more expensive than Quebec). I had saved enough throughout high school to cover first year, and then I worked every xmas break, reading week, and summer, and still went into debt after first year. In third and fourth years I had two jobs during school to keep on top of things, and then when I went back for an upgrade year after I graduated, I worked three jobs.

I was in conversation with a prof about doing graduate work- the program was going to be coursework-based as opposed to thesis-based, which meant that I have to pay tuition and any research I did had to come out of my advisor's funding- I myself would not be eligible for any government funding. It would have been more expensive than undergrad work, with no stipend or additional funding/income (excluding TAships, which are not guaranteed). Really makes you wonder if its worth it, long term.

[AuntShecky]

This thread was the inspiration for:

Educating Waiters (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?45537-Auntie-s-Anti-Poems&p=1243766&viewfull=1#post1243766)

[Ecurb]

A degree isn't worth much; an education is priceless.

[Nick Capozzoli]

You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks who've incurred huge educational debt from pauperism (or at least from debtor's prison) in the event that they can't earn enough to live and pay back the debt. Does that apply only to folks who go to government universities (called "State Schools" here in the USA) or does it also apply to those who go to what we call "Private Schools?"

I have mixed feelings about forgiving tuition debts based solely on inability to repay them just because one can't find a job in the field of the degree. There are consequences to our life choices, and deciding to spend several years paying tuition at a college is a major life choice. If you pay cash (out of savings or from labor) for this experience then "you pays your money and takes your chances." If it doesn't work out for you, "you loses your money," as the expression goes. If you borrow money for this experience, then you, personally, don't lose your money, unless you have to pay it back. But if you don't pay it back, someone else (like maybe all the taxpayers in your country) do lose money.

On the other hand, we have to realize that the colleges themselves should have an obligation to be honest and upfront with their students regarding the "value" of what they are "selling," which is an education and college degree. We use the phrase caveat emptor to admonish folks to be wary of what they are buying. If, for example, you buy a BA in Literature, Sociology, Psychology, or Classical Greek, at a cost of say $100,000 (tuition +/- other costs) and the best employment you can find pays $35K/year doing something like flipping burgers at MacDonalds, whose fault is that? "Very mean" folk would say it is the student's fault (caveat emptor), and they should face the consequences of a bad choice. "Less mean" folk would consider that the colleges may have duped their students by failing to give them an honest cost/benefit analysis of the "product" they are selling.

I hear all the time about folk who have been duped out of their money by all sorts of predatory con-artists who beguile decent folk by promises the con-artists have no intention of keeping, and I'm particularly angry about the predation by sociopaths upon economically vulnerable folk like elderly pensioners. Well, young students are also quite vulnerable to being bilked out of their money by unscrupulous sellers of college degrees.

I do believe that there are great benefits to society and the individual from a college education in an "economically low return" field of study, like Literature, and the "Humanities" in general. That being said, the sellers of such education should be very clear about the economic and non-economic value of what they are selling.

I doubt that they will spontaneously ever do so. Academic bureaucracies, like bureaucracies elsewhere, tend to self-perpetuate and expand. They hardly ever "tighten their belts" unless they are forced to do so. Since one of the main sources of income for colleges is student tuition, they will do everything possible to maintain and increase that income source.

We here in the USA all know that college tuition has risen over the past 30 years far in excess of the national rate of inflation. I'm not sure how much that is so in the UK. Here, at least, a great deal of the increased cost of running a college is due to the expansion in the middle levels of academic managerial bureaucracy. One would imagine that computerization would have allowed colleges to function with "fewer" administrators and to cut costs, but this has not been the case. I remember registering for classes when I arrived at UC Berkeley 37 years ago. Tables were set up in Sproull Plaza and we submitted IBM cards to register for our classes. Tuition "fees" at that time were about $300 per quarter. Fast forward to the present...UCB has an efficient on-line registration service obviating a need for armies of "card collectors," but tuition fees have increased more than 15x while professor salaries have increased at most 4x. Where does the added cost to run UCB come from to justify such remarkable tuition costs? Well how about expansion of bureaucratic "middle management?"

[*Classic*Charm*]

You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks...

You have misread, I'm afraid. Canada DOES NOT have the same system as the UK. In Canada, you're responsible for paying your debts in full, no matter what.

[mal4mac]

I reckon it's because they have no voice. I agree with the sentiments, but mention money and taxation and the arms fly. As it is, I hope kids aren't put off as it's an investment that could lead to a good career. If it doesn't, then I don't think education is wasted.

They seemed to have a voice in the sixties! Maybe that's why I was given a full grant in the seventies :) If all students went on strike today then the government would have to reintroduce a "full grant" system. When more students are working as waiters, perhaps trying to exist as Bohemian artists, what's to stop the bankers & politicians reducing the threshold at which the loan has to be repaid? The idea of the "wage slave" came to prominence on the fifties, now we also seem to have the "debt slave". The CEOs of the UKs top energy companies earn £10 000 000 a year (for what?), while students get into debt and can only find jobs as waiters. The world is crazy! Here's an interesting video on "Wealth Inequality in America", I'm certain a very similar video could be made for the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM


... they're burying themselves in debt for an education that they could pick up for the price of a library card.

You have to pay for a library card!? When the politicians tried to close a library near me readers took out the maximum number of books and emptied the library. They refused to return the books unless the library was kept open. The library was kept open. Maybe you could start a similar campaign for free library cards? Maybe you can afford the card, but what about poor kids, the poorly paid, and the unemployed?


You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks who've incurred huge educational debt from pauperism (or at least from debtor's prison) in the event that they can't earn enough to live and pay back the debt. Does that apply only to folks who go to government universities (called "State Schools" here in the USA) or does it also apply to those who go to what we call "Private Schools?"

All universities in the UK are government financed (apart from the University of Buckingham.)

[Delta40]

In oz it doesn't matter whether its private or public, everyone is entitled to HECS which operates through the tax system.

[OrphanPip]

Private universities in Canada are considered to be the worst quality schools, and there are few of them anyway. The public research universities have the largest endowments and are the most prestigious schools.

Edit: I wish someone could make 35k a year working at McDonalds, they'd barely make 20k working fulltime in Canada and our minimum wage is higher than the US.

[Nick Capozzoli]

You have misread, I'm afraid. Canada DOES NOT have the same system as the UK. In Canada, you're responsible for paying your debts in full, no matter what.

Thanks for the clarification. So you guys up North are in the same boat as we Yanks...

[*Classic*Charm*]

Private universities in Canada are considered to be the worst quality schools, and there are few of them anyway. The public research universities have the largest endowments and are the most prestigious schools.

Edit: I wish someone could make 35k a year working at McDonalds, they'd barely make 20k working fulltime in Canada and our minimum wage is higher than the US.

We have private universities??!!??

[OrphanPip]

We have private universities??!!??

They're mostly theological colleges owned by religious organizations.

[AuntShecky]

I have mixed feelings about forgiving tuition debts based solely on inability to repay them just because one can't find a job in the field of the degree. There are consequences to our life choices, and deciding to spend several years paying tuition at a college is a major life choice. If you pay cash (out of savings or from labor) for this experience then "you pays your money and takes your chances." If it doesn't work out for you, "you loses your money," as the expression goes. If you borrow money for this experience, then you, personally, don't lose your money, unless you have to pay it back. But if you don't pay it back, someone else (like maybe all the taxpayers in your country) do lose money.

On the other hand, we have to realize that the colleges themselves should have an obligation to be honest and upfront with their students regarding the "value" of what they are "selling," which is an education and college degree. We use the phrase caveat emptor to admonish folks to be wary of what they are buying. If, for example, you buy a BA in Literature, Sociology, Psychology, or Classical Greek, at a cost of say $100,000 (tuition +/- other costs) and the best employment you can find pays $35K/year doing something like flipping burgers at MacDonalds, whose fault is that? "Very mean" folk would say it is the student's fault (caveat emptor), and they should face the consequences of a bad choice. "Less mean" folk would consider that the colleges may have duped their students by failing to give them an honest cost/benefit analysis of the "product" they are selling.

I hear all the time about folk who have been duped out of their money by all sorts of predatory con-artists who beguile decent folk by promises the con-artists have no intention of keeping, and I'm particularly angry about the predation by sociopaths upon economically vulnerable folk like elderly pensioners. Well, young students are also quite vulnerable to being bilked out of their money by unscrupulous sellers of college degrees.

I do believe that there are great benefits to society and the individual from a college education in an "economically low return" field of study, like Literature, and the "Humanities" in general. That being said, the sellers of such education should be very clear about the economic and non-economic value of what they are selling.



Up until fairly recently, the airwaves used to be full of PSAs touting the notion "If you want a good job, get a good education." One of the ads-- I still remember-- depicted Abraham Lincoln (a noted autodidact) with a brusque personnel officer who asked the iconic statesman, "Ya got a chauffeur's license?"

The epidemic of unemployment and "underemployment" with waiters with Ph.Ds shows what an outrageous lie that was. It is true that advanced degrees are requirements for professions, but the dirty little secret is that the daughters and sons of the privileged classes have first dibs at placements, simply because their families have influence. "It's who you know" is a cliché, but sadly true.

At the same time, colleges and universities have gotten away from educational priorities and instead are concentrating on the bottom line. The institutions with high-profile athletic departments, including athletic directos and coaches paid multi-million dollar salaries, are not at all ashamed of giving football and basketball more attention than academic pursuits and honors. All those lucrative television contracts, those generous contributions from affluent alumni are just too tempting to dismiss.

Our society is nothing but materialistic, and it seems that everything (except maybe poetry)lives and dies by the dollar. This is true of non-profit institutions as well as profit-making online diploma factories, some of which encourage enrollees to take out student loans they may never be able to pay back.

We have to get back to the original mission of education and stop perpetuating the myth that a college degree will automatically set a person on the right path.

[Paulclem]

Up until fairly recently, the airwaves used to be full of PSAs touting the notion "If you want a good job, get a good education." One of the ads-- I still remember-- depicted Abraham Lincoln (a noted autodidact) with a brusque personnel officer who asked the iconic statesman, "Ya got a chauffeur's license?"

The epidemic of unemployment and "underemployment" with waiters with Ph.Ds shows what an outrageous lie that was. It is true that advanced degrees are requirements for professions, but the dirty little secret is that the daughters and sons of the privileged classes have first dibs at placements, simply because their families have influence. "It's who you know" is a cliché, but sadly true.

At the same time, colleges and universities have gotten away from educational priorities and instead are concentrating on the bottom line. The institutions with high-profile athletic departments, including athletic directos and coaches paid multi-million dollar salaries, are not at all ashamed of giving football and basketball more attention than academic pursuits and honors. All those lucrative television contracts, those generous contributions from affluent alumni are just too tempting to dismiss.

Our society is nothing but materialistic, and it seems that everything (except maybe poetry)lives and dies by the dollar. This is true of non-profit institutions as well as profit-making online diploma factories, some of which encourage enrollees to take out student loans they may never be able to pay back.

We have to get back to the original mission of education and stop perpetuating the myth that a college degree will automatically set a person on the right path.

It's the same here - though the context is different, it's still money/ privilege that will get on in the material world. We don't have the same sport links though.

I like the idea that everything except poetry lives and dies by the dollar. I suppose that's true. I've seen glimpses of the secret life of poetry. A colleague once mentioned to his workmates that he really liked reading it. He, and I, were really surprised by how many people surreptitiously gave him a small collection of their poems to look at.

I think education is good whether it leads to a job or not. Here in the UK, we have a pay back when you earn enough system, which seems to me to be fine. If you achieve a good salary - you pay. If not - you don't. There's this hangup about it being a debt hanging over kids, but I think the alternative is not to have an advanced education in what you want which may possibly limit a person's life chances.

[Nick Capozzoli]

AuntShecky,

I agree completely with your comments.

[AuntShecky]

Yesterday a number of Sunday papers carried this column (http://azstarnet.com/ap/commentary/gina-barreca-humanities-are-at-the-heart-of-real-education/article_e32be4d0-9068-514e-842c-250347940b8d.html) by a UConn professor who also writes for the Hartford Courant. Just by chance, Prof. Barreca addresses the topic we've been discussing in this thread: why should colleges continue to teach the humanities?

Because of the exorbitant costs of higher education, many students and parents primarily consider the "R.O.I" (that old racetrack abbreviation meaning "return on investment.") Increasingly, undergraduates are choosing "practical" fields for their majors, perhaps to the detriment to the ideal of a what an education is supposed to mean. It's not about education any more; it's all about job training.

To her credit, Gina Barreca takes issue with this trend with her highly persuasive article in which she states



Of course we want our children to find useful and profitable work when they graduate from college, if indeed they are fortunate enough to have been able to attend one, but we also need to remember that a real education is not simply the acquisition of a set of skills. Each of us, regardless of birth or class, deserves to be part of the larger conversation that culture provides.

That people of every economic class should have access to and learn about culture is a point well-taken. For the hundreds of angry shouts railing against "elitism" in the arts, there may be only one quiet voice who champions art for everyone, in a way making "elitism" universal (One of these voices belongs to Earl Shorris, the focus of "Escaping the Surround of Force (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?58020-Escaping-quot-The-Surround-of-Force-quot-How-the-Arts-and-Humanities-Can-Defeat-Poverty)," a much-earlier LitNet thread.)


Prof. Barreca also believes that culture-- not math and science-- is a force to unite people from disparate walks of life:


Ever listen to what the people who really run things discuss? CEOs, CFOs, politicians from all parties, ? songwriters, engineers, surgeons, museum curators and producers of non-reality-based television programming? They don’t talk about work. . .They talk about books, films, art, music and poetry. . .
And there’s another reason to study poetry: As one honest friend declared, the study of literature can be justified by the fact that nobody ever charmed a girl by reciting an equation.


The article concludes with a warning to Academia against the harmful effects of dismissing arts and the humanities, such as shortchanging students the full benefit of a good education:


Public universities are in particular danger of contorting and, at their worst moments, crippling their student body if they define themselves as simply a way for students to get better jobs. In such a caged context, colleges are in danger of becoming service institutions: We will train the Workers of the World, sure — only we won’t give them anything in the humanities to unite them, inspire them, sensitize them or enlighten them.

Needless to say, yours fooly agrees completely. How about you?




http://azstarnet.com/ap/commentary/gina-barreca-humanities-are-at-the-heart-of-real-education/article_e32be4d0-9068-514e-842c-250347940b8d.html

[Hawkman]

Something which should perhaps be considered noteworthy with regard to the status of the humanities as an academic subject is that unlike sciences (which are non political) and business studies, (which only serves the status quo) they are predominantly governed by leftist thinking. So what? Well, as it is the duty of the left to raise concerns about, and criticise a globalising society which is almost completely dominated by capitalist liberal economies, the most effective means of marginalising those critiques is to down play the value of the humanities. As has been noted in other threads on this forum, contact hours are reduced in humanities subjects in university and tuition fees are being increased, which renders the university education more difficult to attain for the economically disadvantaged.

Sorry - there was originally a lot more of this but half of it has gone missing, despite having been saved. So much for restoring auto saved content. Can't be bothered to write it all out again.

Live and be well - H

[AuntShecky]

Something which should perhaps be considered noteworthy with regard to the status of the humanities as an academic subject is that unlike sciences (which are non political) and business studies, (which only serves the status quo) they are predominantly governed by leftist thinking. So what? Well, as it is the duty of the left to raise concerns about, and criticise a globalising society which is almost completely dominated by capitalist liberal economies, the most effective means of marginalising those critiques is to down play the value of the humanities. As has been noted in other threads on this forum, contact hours are reduced in humanities subjects in university and tuition fees are being increased, which renders the university education more difficult to attain for the economically disadvantaged.


Live and be well - H

These are all valid issues, with the possible exception of science being "non-political," stated with the understanding that political arguments are verboten on these forums. Apparently, there have been so-called debates about global warming, even though indisputable facts have increasingly porven the truth about this world-wide problem.

All the more reason to insist that today's college students receive a complete and well-rounded education, including the arts and the humanities.

[Clopin]

That's true here in Oz too. If you earn less than $47000 per annum then your Higher Education Debt doesn't kick in so there are a multitude of interesting jobs out there - even career at part time level and one can thrive without ever having to pay the government back so I wouldn't be too quick to put all students in the victim basket. I have two degrees and work in the public service which in Oz is packed with benefits like double super, job security and high pay but I work part time and haven't paid my $8000 debt back yet.

You know the government didn't 'earn' that money right? That's money other people provided to pay for services which are supposed to be useful to them, which probably doesn't include your two useless, indulgent degrees. The cushy government job you mention just adds to your guilt amigo.

Besides I see no problem with people getting trades or learning real professions and actually having to earn a living. Anybody can self educate, get a library card they are free. You can even download the curriculum from top schools directly from their websites and watch many lectures online. Education is the cheapest it's been in the history of mankind, but that useless piece of paper that qualifies you to do absolutely nothing? Yes that's an expansive scam.

Also the quality of a university education seems to be complete crap nowadays. My girlfriends room mate is a business student and she hasn't read a book outside of the classroom (so she reads maybe ten books a year) in her entire life aside from trite **** like Harry Potter and Janet Evanovich. The courses she's enrolled in include; public speaking, a history of the Beatles, astronomy and greek mythology and a few retarded business classes where she learns how to shake hands and print business cards.


You have misread, I'm afraid. Canada DOES NOT have the same system as the UK. In Canada, you're responsible for paying your debts in full, no matter what.

Yes that's realy terrible... being expected to pay back money you borrowed. My heart weeps for people who expected to be able to spend four to six years critiquing Herzog films, talking about Andy Warhol and reading Russian poetry on the federal dime without having to be responsible for their own spending and then 'discovering' that the hackneyed education they picked up is totally worthless regarding absolutely everything.

Canada (where I live) has such a shortage of skilled tradespeople and frankly unskilled workers that the country is going so far as to import labour for decently paid and available positions, and yet all the 'smart' people are employed at Starbucks with their liberal arts degrees. The stigma against trades and actually working for a living is perpetuated by such idiotic buffoons that it pains me to even think about all the degrees handed out to these imbeciles annually.

[Emil Miller]

Yes that's realy terrible... being expected to pay back money you borrowed. My heart weeps for people who expected to be able to spend four to six years critiquing Herzog films, talking about Andy Warhol and reading Russian poetry on the federal dime without having to be responsible for their own spending and then 'discovering' that the hackneyed education they picked up is totally worthless regarding absolutely everything.

Canada (where I live) has such a shortage of skilled tradespeople and frankly unskilled workers that the country is going so far as to import labour for decently paid and available positions, and yet all the 'smart' people are employed at Starbucks with their liberal arts degrees. The stigma against trades and actually working for a living is perpetuated by such idiotic buffoons that it pains me to even think about all the degrees handed out to these imbeciles annually.

Ah yes, without the arts we could all be clever robots, but long before the word robot was coined, man had realised the truth of the biblical saying that:"Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.''
Regardless of whether one believes in God or not, it's obvious that art is integral to human existence, otherwise why would music be so cherished by mathematicians who often make up the bulk of chamber music players. I agree that there seems to be a stigma attached to trades that concern our purely physical needs, but that doesn't negate the spritual requirement that seperates humans' from the animals, as much as people often like and care for animals.

[Paulclem]

Yes that's realy terrible... being expected to pay back money you borrowed. My heart weeps for people who expected to be able to spend four to six years critiquing Herzog films, talking about Andy Warhol and reading Russian poetry on the federal dime without having to be responsible for their own spending and then 'discovering' that the hackneyed education they picked up is totally worthless regarding absolutely everything.

Canada (where I live) has such a shortage of skilled tradespeople and frankly unskilled workers that the country is going so far as to import labour for decently paid and available positions, and yet all the 'smart' people are employed at Starbucks with their liberal arts degrees. The stigma against trades and actually working for a living is perpetuated by such idiotic buffoons that it pains me to even think about all the degrees handed out to these imbeciles annually.

I think your blame is directed a the wrong people. The skills gap is present in the UK as well. Perhaps it's present in other western countries too, but the blame - if there is any for wanting to become better educated in the subject you like and perhaps excel at - lies with the government who consistently fail to fund and promote a broad and balanced education with a clear message about progression and careers.

It is also the fault of the education establishment for not really understanding anything outside the educational world and thus not promoting, encouraging and signposting those subjects which will fill the skills gap.

It is also the fault of higher education for not being able to provide combinations which can nurture the artistic side whilst providing real skills training. They provide courses of three to four years in universities, racking up student debt when they are in from October to May, with often extended Christmas and Easter holidays with many subjects providing 10 or 12 hours teaching time week. Questionable value for money I would say.

It's time for a change, and time to stop blaming students who are only taking what is available, what they see as being worthwhile with the limited options they are presented with.


Ah yes, without the arts we could all be clever robots, but long before the word robot was coined, man had realised the truth of the biblical saying that:"Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.''
Regardless of whether one believes in God or not, it's obvious that art is integral to human existence, otherwise why would music be so cherished by mathematicians who often make up the bulk of chamber music players. I agree that there seems to be a stigma attached to trades that concern our purely physical needs, but that doesn't negate the spritual requirement that seperates humans' from the animals, as much as people often like and care for animals.

Agreed. I find your views refreshing liberal Brian.

[Clopin]

Ah yes, without the arts we could all be clever robots, but long before the word robot was coined, man had realised the truth of the biblical saying that:"Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.''
Regardless of whether one believes in God or not, it's obvious that art is integral to human existence, otherwise why would music be so cherished by mathematicians who often make up the bulk of chamber music players. I agree that there seems to be a stigma attached to trades that concern our purely physical needs, but that doesn't negate the spritual requirement that seperates humans' from the animals, as much as people often like and care for animals.

When did I suggest getting rid of 'the arts'? This is a totally fallacious, probably intentional, misunderstanding on your part; the idea that without people going and getting pointless degrees nobody would read or contribute to art. I don't have a degree and I read ten books last month, it's really easy to do... I went to the library, took them out and then read them, it was free as well.

[OrphanPip]

Canada (where I live) has such a shortage of skilled tradespeople and frankly unskilled workers that the country is going so far as to import labour for decently paid and available positions, and yet all the 'smart' people are employed at Starbucks with their liberal arts degrees. The stigma against trades and actually working for a living is perpetuated by such idiotic buffoons that it pains me to even think about all the degrees handed out to these imbeciles annually.

The labour shortage is a myth perpetuated by companies with a vested interest in depressing labour costs. Several economists and analysts have reported on the fact that labour "shortages" in Canada have essentially not changed in decades. Yet all of a sudden its a crisis that require importing workers? What about the offloading of work training on to the public purse by corporate interests? And then they expect us to subsidize the importation of miners from China? The trades are the most heavily subsidized of all education in Canada. You can get a trades diploma for $100 dollars from a public college in Quebec. And the fact of the matter is that the service industry accounts for the majority of the Canadian economy, there are not so many trades jobs as the media pundits would have people believe.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stephen+Hume+Canada+skills+labour+shortages+myth/9074603/story.html

The fact of the matter is a university was never intended as a training centre, it's meant for education.

[Emil Miller]

Agreed. I find your views refreshing liberal Brian.

Liberal is as liberal does and there are cases where it doesn't.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The fact of the matter is a university was never intended as a training centre, it's meant for education.

This!

A friend of mine works in recruiting for an Ontario university, and we were talking about the argument made (by myself, as well as others) that universities provide lots of knowledge and no skills. I feel very frustrated that I don't see a future utilizing my degree until I have acquired the skills which will allow me to apply my knowledge. She gets frustrated by that argument, given the fact that universities were never intended to provide skills. Universities were created with the intention of being places where those who wished to learn came to listen to those who wished to teach. They were intended to serve as, essentially, lecture halls- to propagate theory and knowledge. They were never intended to become sites for the mass training of trades, which were until relatively recently learned in the field.


A degree isn't worth much; an education is priceless.

That's all well and good, but for the fact that I cannot apply my education without the necessary skill.

For example, I have an agriculture degree (if you want to get technical about it). I have a fair bit of knowledge about a lot of aspects of animal health, physiology and husbandry. I do not, however, have the skills to apply my knowledge, which is why I want to go to vet school, which will both provide me with more knowledge and give me the skills to use it.

[mal4mac]

... I cannot apply my education without the necessary skill.

For example, I have an agriculture degree (if you want to get technical about it). I have a fair bit of knowledge about a lot of aspects of animal health, physiology and husbandry. I do not, however, have the skills to apply my knowledge, which is why I want to go to vet school, which will both provide me with more knowledge and give me the skills to use it.

But without an education you are more likely to be at a loss when something unusual happens.

I'm reading "Spillover" by David Quammen at the moment which is a wonderful account of zoonosis, and the widely educated vets & other specialists, who have managed to advance this essential science, and thereby save countless animal and human lives. The vets (they seem to be mostly vets) are amazing not only for their skill & bravery but for their wide ranging intellects, many have taken a second degree or two in subjects like epidemiology or tropical medicine. No way would a narrowly trained vet have any chance of advancing such a field. I suggest you read this book, it should make you feel that your agriculture degree has not been a waste of time. Maybe your agricultural knowledge could help you and other vets when you encounter unusual cases. For example, it was found that palm oil sap, infected by bats, was the source of one virus that killed many humans. Detailed knowledge of agriculture, anthropology, zoology and virology was needed to put all these pieces together!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't have a degree and I read ten books last month, it's really easy to do... I went to the library, took them out and then read them, it was free as well.

I have seen a lot of comments such as this one, which seems to be suggesting that you can get the same value from a library card as you can from studying a complete degree. To me this is about the same suggestion as studying to be a medical doctor by reading Wikipedia and watching YouTube videos.

If this was the case and all you need was a library card or Wikipedia, then let's just close all the universities down completely. We can stick up a supermarket or a McDonald's in the space instead and for education you can walk around trying to find a library still open after government cuts.

[Clopin]

That was one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Congrats.

I was going to just leave it at that, but here I'll just go and point out why your post was totally retarded and betrayed a stunning lack of logical cohesion in your thought process.

You start by countering my suggestion that reading classic works of literature/non fiction is a valid educative process and an autodidactic education can yield as many benefits as taking a degree by suggesting that this is the equivalent to watching youtube videos on medicine. What makes you say that? First of all, medicine is largely a trade which requires sophisticated tools, machinery and use of fine motor skills and the failure to perform adequately can result in loss of life or debilitating injury for patients. I also don't believe you can learn to be a carpenter by reading books on carpentry; you have to actually go out and build things to master the technique. Similarly you can not learn to paint like Rembrandt solely from reading books on painting, and in all of these fields dedicated hands on training will be more valuable than book learning (youtube videos might often actually be of use though).

Now it was my assumption that this thread was largely considering degrees in liberal arts and humanities (a degree in medicine is obviously very valuable) in which case reading the actual classic works and criticism which are the curriculum of said university degrees can't really be dismissed as "watching videos on youtube" because that's simply... not a fair comparison.

You next move on to Wikipedia and mcdonalds (which I never mentioned) and bring up closing down universities and replacing them with supermarkets and fast food restaurants as some sort of horrible anti education dystopia which I suppose my ideas on self educating would naturally bring about.

I have plenty of friends with "complete degrees" and they haven't opened a book in years and they know absolutely nothing because getting a BA with almost purely elective courses of dubious educational merit is totally possible and in fact easy to do.

Now for some people who are serious scholars and researchers universities are invaluable, but for most people you can educate yourself just fine without spending the hundred grand.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My post was perfectly accurate and only confirmed by yours above and your clouded anecdotes, like the one below:


I have plenty of friends with "complete degrees" and they haven't opened a book in years and they know absolutely nothing because getting a BA with almost purely elective courses of dubious educational merit is totally possible and in fact easy to do.

From which you conclude, basically, humanity degrees are of 'dubious educational merit' which can be easily replaced with enough visits to the library because, apparently, these degrees are really 'easy to do' anyway. By the same standard therefore I say you can replace theoretical knowledge in other fields in the same way. You don't need to go to medical lectures, mathematical lectures or any other degree that you personally deem worthy because, I assume, you can also get this knowledge from library cards...or Wikipedia or YouTube. Why not, if you can get enough knowledge from library cards, let's just do that?

(I could easily throw out similar clouded anecdotes about how I have gained more knowledge about some personal medical issues from reading online, than I have from my doctor. So I could conclude that all doctors are pointless.)

Again it comes back to perspective. You don't value humanity degrees (it clearly seems) therefore we don't need them.

It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch. They should update it with subjects - the tall one is science, the middle one is literature and the small one is chess study!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2k1iRD2f-c

"I look down on him because he has a humanities degree...etc, etc"

[*Classic*Charm*]

... your post was totally retarded ...


You don't give yourself or your education much credit with this little gem.

[OrphanPip]

Learning to formulate a critical argument, and then also being able to articulate it effectively in writing, is a lot harder than most people give it credit. My students, who are all quite intelligent young women and men, struggle quite a bit with grasping these basic skills. Writing, discussing, and receiving criticism is a necessary part of the learning process in the humanities.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, it also amazes me that people still think we study one subject in isolation from the world. Knowledge is knowledge and I wish people would give over with hierarchy business and understand that knowledge and learning enriches all society.

[mal4mac]

I have seen a lot of comments such as this one, which seems to be suggesting that you can get the same value from a library card as you can from studying a complete degree. To me this is about the same suggestion as studying to be a medical doctor by reading Wikipedia and watching YouTube videos.

I don't think the comparison works. The greatest writers (Shakespeare, Dickens...) didn't go to University. So, with the Bard and Boz in mind, it appears that you get the greatest value from not going to university! Maybe an 18 year old who has great writing talent should forget about University, strike out for London, Paris or NY and work in theatres, do freelance Parliamentary reporting, etc.,... The university of life has worked better in the past, if you aspire to greatness. So gravitate towards top playwrights, artists and politicians in cultural centres, work like the devil in jobs associated with these professions, get a library card and wear it out, and get writing... that has to be better than university!

[*Classic*Charm*]

I don't think the comparison works. The greatest writers (Shakespeare, Dickens...) didn't go to University. So, with the Bard and Boz in mind, it appears that you get the greatest value from not going to university! Maybe an 18 year old who has great writing talent should forget about University, strike out for London, Paris or NY and work in theatres, do freelance Parliamentary reporting, etc.,... The university of life has worked better in the past, if you aspire to greatness. So gravitate towards top playwrights, artists and politicians in cultural centres, work like the devil in jobs associated with these professions, get a library card and wear it out, and get writing... that has to be better than university!

Except that in many cases, those jobs are preferentially going to go to candidates with a degree. And generally, it takes more than just a few good pieces of work to be hired as a freelancer- people like to see credentials. For those first starting out, until you are published in a few places, a degree fills that space and acts as a credential.

[Clopin]

From which you conclude, basically, humanity degrees are of 'dubious educational merit'

No... I never said that. I said that the education is expensive and possible to obtain without that expense. I never said that a university education is bad, just that it's not necessarily better than self education and not always (or even often when it comes to humanities) worth the price of admission.

I pointed out that quite often university graduates don't know very much to show that things like a degree/university courses in themselves are quite meaningless. The point is that if someone really wants to learn they will do so, in a classroom or on their own, and if they just want the degree they can obtain that without learning much at all.

A lot of these degrees are easy to do. Every idiot straight out of high school nowadays gets a degree in some sort of bologna and they end up paying for it while working retail for minimum wage.

Also your post was not perfectly accurate and I addressed why in my post. You chose to ignore that of course and focused on one small sentence to draw your inane conclusion of my meaning and point, which you got wrong.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No... I never said that. I said that the education is expensive and possible to obtain without that expense. I never said that a university education is bad, just that it's not necessarily better than self education and not always (or even often when it comes to humanities) worth the price of admission.

I pointed out that quite often university graduates don't know very much to show that things like a degree/university courses in themselves are quite meaningless. The point is that if someone really wants to learn they will do so, in a classroom or on their own, and if they just want the degree they can obtain that without learning much at all.

A lot of these degrees are easy to do. Every idiot straight out of high school nowadays gets a degree in some sort of bologna and they end up paying for it while working retail for minimum wage.

Well first of all my original comment was not specifically directed at you, though was in part I suppose, but rather at the general idea that somehow a degree in the humanities is not worth the same as other degrees because you can get the same thing from just reading on your own:


I have seen a lot of comments such as this one, which seems to be suggesting that...

Yours must be about the tenth comment I have seen on the matter in the past few months - also along with comments suggesting that humanity/art degrees by their very nature are inferior to science/engineering degrees. As if everybody in the world should just study science or something like that? So in no way at all did I get that "wrong."

University courses offer a structured approach to learning, guided by absolute experts in the field. Furthermore, you have potential access to some of the best reading material and resources not readily available to the general public. You study in an environment of other learners in which you can bounce ideas around, share notes or catch up on things you might have missed. Pit this against a library card and a sole learner and it is very difficult to match the potential for learning. Yes I suppose it is possible, but not likely. And yes there are lazy people on degrees who don't do the reading vs people not on the courses who do, but so what? The potential learning with university support vs without it is clearly better and anybody who thinks not is deluded.

Does this mean that the difference in learning is worth the cost of a degree?

That depends upon the individual, though yes it is very expensive now (£27k) in the UK and do I think the difference is worth it at that cost? No, no way - though if you want to teach it or want to do anything that requires a humanity degree then you need to pay it.

I don't agree that any degree is easy to do. Yes I have seen people taking it easy, not doing the reading/reading spark notes etc and just cramming for exams, but I think these people are just cheating themselves. These sorts of people will come out in my opinion wasting the potential of the university experience, but that is up to them and I think these people are in the minority anyway as most people investing time in a degree don't really do this. Even for the lazy people it still requires three years of dedication, exams, essays, presentations etc, so many people can do that, maybe 50% of the population at a complete guess, but not "any idiot."

The costs of study now are too much for people just with an interest in the subject perhaps. I wanted to do some other courses for interest, not a full degree, just some modules in a different field but it was going to cost me something like £2000 and it wasn't worth it for that. Instead the new free modules via the Open University, but through other universities, Future Learn are pretty good for general interest and is perhaps the sort of way forward for those caught between wanting to study and not being able to pay for it. The link is below if any one is interested, though it is just in the early stages and there is nothing comprehensive yet, but the psychology one I'm doing is pretty good - just video links and articles but better than watching the telly. My main area of study is chess now anyway which is where I am spending most of my time, minimum 20-30 hours a week.

https://www.futurelearn.com/

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[JBI]

Learning to formulate a critical argument, and then also being able to articulate it effectively in writing, is a lot harder than most people give it credit. My students, who are all quite intelligent young women and men, struggle quite a bit with grasping these basic skills. Writing, discussing, and receiving criticism is a necessary part of the learning process in the humanities.

Yes, but ultimately there are several fields in the humanities of equal importance that go unchecked. Namely, linguistic and philological knowledge, foreign language acquisition, research methodology, etc.

We are not writing "what do you think of this poem" papers every day. Nor are we writing "how does two novels we studied this term portray gender and class relations in regard to family obligations" essays either. We generally, when we research, focus more on inherent textual difficulties than on expositions of particular themes, that make up the general educational standard of the Undergraduate classroom.

The problem with humanities degrees is for the most part, many professors focus on "being interesting" more than on being educationally directed. They are not so much focused on teaching things as so much as giving people time to "express" themselves, or write boring essays on topics they care nothing about.

[JBI]

I don't think the comparison works. The greatest writers (Shakespeare, Dickens...) didn't go to University. So, with the Bard and Boz in mind, it appears that you get the greatest value from not going to university! Maybe an 18 year old who has great writing talent should forget about University, strike out for London, Paris or NY and work in theatres, do freelance Parliamentary reporting, etc.,... The university of life has worked better in the past, if you aspire to greatness. So gravitate towards top playwrights, artists and politicians in cultural centres, work like the devil in jobs associated with these professions, get a library card and wear it out, and get writing... that has to be better than university!


The Bard did, however, manage to grow up in the theatre of London, something which dominates his every work. The community of authors there are the backbone for his artistic development, as traceable from his early mediocre works to his final successes. The progression of his content, themes, style, etc. all demonstrate the intense feedback and understanding he would develop toward the genre in which he was engaged. Such an education, ultimately, would not have been available for someone from any other community, or any other part of England for that matter.

[Clopin]

Nelly in my own studies I am only interested in humanities fields. It would be flagrantly against my own self interest and convictions to suggest that studying literature, history, art and philosophy is lesser than science, medicine, technology or mathematics. Kindly stick to responding to things which I have said when you are arguing with me. Yes you point out above that you're also considering other peoples views and generalizing, but that wasn't exactly clear until your most recent post.

"University courses offer a structured approach to learning, guided by absolute experts in the field. "

This is debatable. I think if you cared to try you could find cases of very inexpert, stupid and destructive professors teaching at universities throughout the world at any given time.

"Furthermore, you have potential access to some of the best reading material and resources not readily available to the general public."

Some examples please.

"You study in an environment of other learners in which you can bounce ideas around, share notes or catch up on things you might have missed. Pit this against a library card and a sole learner and it is very difficult to match the potential for learning. "

Why? That potential is limitless. Unless you are telling me you've gone through the entire contents of all of the libraries in your area. Also am I supposed to be in complete isolation? I post on forums online to get other peoples opinions on what they've read and I have my own friends and acquaintances offline to speak to about what I've read.

"Yes I suppose it is possible,"

What do you mean you 'suppose' it's possible? It's a demonstrated reality and it doesn't take much searching to find a list of people who published significant works, furthered their fields of research/thought or achieved a real depth of knowledge despite never setting foot inside a university. Goethe, Hemingway, Borges, da Vinci, Gorky, and Melville to name just a few.

"I don't agree that any degree is easy to do. Yes I have seen people taking it easy, not doing the reading/reading spark notes etc and just cramming for exams, but I think these people are just cheating themselves. These sorts of people will come out in my opinion wasting the potential of the university experience, but that is up to them and I think these people are in the minority anyway as most people investing time in a degree don't really do this. Even for the lazy people it still requires three years of dedication, exams, essays, presentations etc, so many people can do that, maybe 50% of the population at a complete guess, but not "any idiot."

I think it's pretty much anyone. If you can graduate high school you can graduate with a BA in something.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not arguing with people on forums because as I have other things to do. I have already wasted enough time on you. If you don't think university courses offer a structured approach to learnings vs reading library books alone, fine. If you don't think there are good and valuable teachers/professors then fine. If you don't think the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge or any other good universities, have better reading material then a local public library, then again fine. If you think it is a better approach to learning doing so on your own, as opposed to having the opportunity of support from others, then fine. If you think that just about anyone can get a degree in the arts, then again fine. Some people just like to argue for the sake of it.

[mal4mac]

The Bard did, however, manage to grow up in the theatre of London, something which dominates his every work. The community of authors there are the backbone for his artistic development, as traceable from his early mediocre works to his final successes. The progression of his content, themes, style, etc. all demonstrate the intense feedback and understanding he would develop toward the genre in which he was engaged. Such an education, ultimately, would not have been available for someone from any other community, or any other part of England for that matter.

This is true, and Dickens started as a parliamentary reporter in an age & place renowned for great parliamentary speech makers, and great newspapers. So he also had a great feedback loop. So where can someone today get into a great crucible for creative endeavour? I did some reporting for my student newspaper. But it didn't lead to much, if anything! Too small a pool, too little inspiration.

[Aylinn]

"You study in an environment of other learners in which you can bounce ideas around, share notes or catch up on things you might have missed. Pit this against a library card and a sole learner and it is very difficult to match the potential for learning. "

Why? That potential is limitless. Unless you are telling me you've gone through the entire contents of all of the libraries in your area. Also am I supposed to be in complete isolation? I post on forums online to get other peoples opinions on what they've read and I have my own friends and acquaintances offline to speak to about what I've read.
Clopin, have you ever been to a university library? Because, I have never come across a local public library that would have so many books or even 1/6 of the books about linguistic, methodology and foreign language acquisition that my university library had.

[JBI]

This is true, and Dickens started as a parliamentary reporter in an age & place renowned for great parliamentary speech makers, and great newspapers. So he also had a great feedback loop. So where can someone today get into a great crucible for creative endeavour? I did some reporting for my student newspaper. But it didn't lead to much, if anything! Too small a pool, too little inspiration.

Well, if you want to know your subject, perhaps take a look at publishing. Every genre is very much community run, so the fantasy author must be trained in the genre he wishes to read in, and must be engaging with the audience he wishes to impress. That's perhaps why Canadians have been such strong players in the contemporary fantasy genre field - there is a sort of community acceptance of that genre in the cross-border that does not translate over into other genres - namely Canadian fiction with Canadian content is unpublishable in the American market, whereas fantasy, with its lack of particular constraints is.

When we consider all these "poetic movements" of the second half of the 20th century, we are besieged with numerous geographic or style schools who focus around one periodical. Fiction is more difficult, but there are major trends that seem to be in focus - one must ultimately play to an audience.

As for where to find it now - well, literature today is far too chaotic - too many voices writing today and too many different readers. We are, in a sense, blocked out, and waiting for another mass movement to sort of turn things around.



Back to the original question of the worth of the education - it all needs to be counted. You don't not learn anything useful in an humanities course (usually, some are actually more or less useless) but there is no justification there that it is worth one's money. Likewise to suggest English be more valuable than lets say Japanese literature is also incredibly problematic.

My general feelings toward it have always been, within your undergraduate years, make sure to add one or two foreign languages behind your belt, in addition to familiarizing yourself in a specific discipline (Literature, Art, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, etc.). The so called humanities idea is derived from such an understanding of the engagement of a tradition with the understanding of languages.

Now, if you want to attribute literary studies with any other number of skills, my question remains how is this any more true than any other number of subjects that teach critical thinking, and formal writing - skills, which ultimately, can be taught without approaches to Shakespeare or literary studies. The actual translation of these skills is neither justification nor necessarily true about any field and more than another.

The rational of the scientific method also includes a strong emphasis on communication - the so called 5 paragraph essay which is the backbone of western composition is easily replaced with the scientific study format, which communicates in a different way. There is nothing to suggest that the scientist is not learning some critical skills while discussing proofs and research methodology. In fact, the use of statistics is heavily related to the scientific understanding of the world.

This is not to downplay literature, merely to dissuade others from making this silly argument that we actually get something from classwork that is of great value. I would say you may learn something, but if I needed to pay 40,000$ American a year for it, I wouldn't do it.

[JBI]

Clopin, have you ever been to a university library? Because, I have never come across a local public library that would have so many books or even 1/6 of the books about linguistic, methodology and foreign language acquisition that my university library had.

The Shanghai Library, Nanjing Library, and Chinese National Library all have collections bigger than the universities in their respective cities, namely Fudan University, Nanjing University, and Peking University - in fact, much of the research is headed off in the public library here, as they contain the rarest and most prized collections.

The Toronto Public Library was not too bad either, nor is the Library of Congress in the United States. The New York network of libraries is not to be dismissed either. There actually are numerous libraries that have great work, and when you are looking at research on the level of rare editions, you most likely will not be restricted to one library either, but probably traveling to different major research libraries depending on the archive you are interested in.

[Aylinn]

I see it's different in these places, good to know it. :)


This is not to downplay literature, merely to dissuade others from making this silly argument that we actually get something from classwork that is of great value. I would say you may learn something, but if I needed to pay 40,000$ American a year for it, I wouldn't do it.

40,000$ for a year? I would definitly pass up on this oportunity if I had to pay so much.

[Ecurb]

Humans are social creatures. We are motivated by our social interactions with others. Universities provide an environment that stimulates students’ desire to learn.

Reading gives the potential scholar a breadth of knowledge. But in order to actually BE a scholar, the student must both read and write. Scholarship involves both learning and teaching. It's not easy to learn how to write well in a vacuum. A writer can hone his craft by having educated, critical readers comment on his work and make suggestions and arguments. He can also sharpen his thinking by expressing his ideas orally, and by arguing about them with his teachers and his peers.

Universities create a scholarly community. The social aspect of this community is conducive to scholarship. Students don’t have the ability to present their papers at conferences or to publish them in journals, like professors do. The feedback professors get from this presentation of their ideas (as well as the social and financial motivations provided by the professional advancement facilitated by publication) is vital to scholarship.

Also (from a personal perspective), most libraries do not offer card-holders the opportunity to play on varsity ice hockey teams.

[Clopin]

I'm not arguing with people on forums because as I have other things to do. I have already wasted enough time on you. If you don't think university courses offer a structured approach to learnings vs reading library books alone, fine. If you don't think there are good and valuable teachers/professors then fine. If you don't think the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge or any other good universities, have better reading material then a local public library, then again fine. If you think it is a better approach to learning doing so on your own, as opposed to having the opportunity of support from others, then fine. If you think that just about anyone can get a degree in the arts, then again fine. Some people just like to argue for the sake of it.

I honestly never made half the claims you're ascribing to me in this post. I've also never (nope not once) suggested that a self education is "better" than a university education. You could really stand to take some reading comprehension courses bucko.

[Clopin]

Humans are social creatures. We are motivated by our social interactions with others. Universities provide an environment that stimulates students’ desire to learn.

Reading gives the potential scholar a breadth of knowledge. But in order to actually BE a scholar, the student must both read and write. Scholarship involves both learning and teaching. It's not easy to learn how to write well in a vacuum. A writer can hone his craft by having educated, critical readers comment on his work and make suggestions and arguments. He can also sharpen his thinking by expressing his ideas orally, and by arguing about them with his teachers and his peers.

Universities create a scholarly community. The social aspect of this community is conducive to scholarship. Students don’t have the ability to present their papers at conferences or to publish them in journals, like professors do. The feedback professors get from this presentation of their ideas (as well as the social and financial motivations provided by the professional advancement facilitated by publication) is vital to scholarship.

Also (from a personal perspective), most libraries do not offer card-holders the opportunity to play on varsity ice hockey teams.

At a certain level an academic probably has to be in a university environment (though not in all cases) which is perfectly reasonable to me. My argument pretty much only extends to whether or not getting a BA in a humanities degree is better than just reading an awful lot of very good books on your own time, and I don't think it is.

[Rachel Bentham]

I never got a degree...I am currently making 50K in a sales position after having worked for Dell. I didn't need it to get where I am, but it would have indeed been beneficial. Time constraints, and working to keep a family of five in a house didn't allow me the money. There are two sides to every coin. I read an exorbitant amount on my own because my love for learning never died...and someday I hope to go back to school.

I think the argument should really revolve around the fact that too few student understand that furthering their education is NOT a right...it's a privilege, and one that should never been taken so lightly as to be required for certain positions.

[Aylinn]

At a certain level an academic probably has to be in a university environment (though not in all cases) which is perfectly reasonable to me. My argument pretty much only extends to whether or not getting a BA in a humanities degree is better than just reading an awful lot of very good books on your own time, and I don't think it is.

Well, what about people who want to be teachers? I don't know what exactly people from England, US or other countries have to do to become one. In Poland you have to have at least BA and teachers training (universities provide it) to be eligible for teaching positions, but because most teachers have MA degree, it's better to have it. Someone who has just graduated from high school and read a lot of books about pedagogy and on the subject he/she would like to teach, would not be taken into consideration.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I honestly never made half the claims you're ascribing to me in this post. I've also never (nope not once) suggested that a self education is "better" than a university education. You could really stand to take some reading comprehension courses bucko.

Oh so now you are in favour of courses 'bucko?' Make up your mind. As I said, fine, you can think what you want. People can read what you have put and what I have put and come to their own conclusions as I am not wasting my time on you.

[mal4mac]

I never got a degree...I am currently making 50K in a sales position after having worked for Dell. I didn't need it to get where I am, but it would have indeed been beneficial. Time constraints, and working to keep a family of five in a house didn't allow me the money. There are two sides to every coin. I read an exorbitant amount on my own because my love for learning never died...and someday I hope to go back to school.


Why bother to go back to school? Being a Dell salesperson is a lucrative and worthwhile job. You seem to be getting on fine with reading in your spare time.

I just read a thread on here started by a guy who gave up reading literature for five years after doing a literature degree. Neely seems to spend all his time spare time playing chess. JBI hates novels. I (mostly) avoid physics. Take a degree, learn to hate your subject!

Check out the "The How of Happiness" by Sonja Lyubomirsky, she gives an account of a friend of hers who loved literature, went back to school as a mature student, and learned to hate literature! This is in a chapter on "motivation theory". There are two types of motivation - intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is where you do something because you love it, like you and me read literature because we love it. In doing a degree you are a making the motivation extrinsic, that is, you are forced to do something. You will resent at least part of what you do because extrinsic forces are operating on you, you will not be doing what you want.

I'd only go back to school, to study literature, if I had a pressing need for a literature degree. For instance, I might love literature & teaching so much that I just *have to* teach literature. In that case, I would need a degree in literature, so would have to tough it out, and hope it doesn't kill my interest. But teaching literature doesn't sound attractive to me, so I'll avoid throwing my money at (mostly) useless lecturers, then I'll be able to maintain early retirement and read more!

[Aylinn]

Check out the "The How of Happiness" by Sonja Lyubomirsky, she gives an account of a friend of hers who loved literature, went back to school as a mature student, and learned to hate literature!
I met people like that, but those were people who had an infantile vision that in literature classes they will only discusses what they love. (which often means books like Twilight or Harry Potter) People with this immature attitude often drop out or learn to hate literature, once they discover they are not reading and are not going to read what entertains them. I wonder if that friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky had the same problem.

[Rachel Bentham]

Thanks for the props mal4mac; the only reason I want to go back to school is to possibly fulfill my long lost dream of social work. For now, I am completely happy where I am at managing over 350 small business and possibly entering management within the next 6 months.

I completely agree with the above statement regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation...for what is true motivation unless it is developed within ourselves, for ourselves? I love literature and writing with a passion...but if someone held a sheet of paper in front of me and told me to be brilliant, the resulting work would sound canned and processed. Genius is born not made.

The beauty of the world we live in is that the entire world, past, present and even future is at our fingertips...we are mere clicks away from information that was once limited to scholars and the very wealthy, whom hoarded it as a source of power. With all of this available to us, the need/right to go to college becomes an antiquated method for achievement and cheap excuse for not seeking what we could so easily find ourselves.

[JBI]

I met people like that, but those were people who had an infantile vision that in literature classes they will only discusses what they love. (which often means books like Twilight or Harry Potter) People with this immature attitude often drop out or learn to hate literature, once they discover they are not reading and are not going to read what entertains them. I wonder if that friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky had the same problem.

There are plenty of excellent readers who read high brow stuff who were put off literature because of their professors. One of my professors, for instance, instilled a great hatred for Victorian novelists, despite them not being inherently bad.

You are not thinking of the picture widely enough. The study of literature is not primarily concerned with aesthetics. Try reading for alternative textual manuscript editions for hours a day and then you will realize it is not so much fun. I remember spending a month flipping through various pre King James English Bibles as part of one of my courses - not the most interesting of work.

It's not all fun and games.

[mal4mac]

I met people like that, but those were people who had an infantile vision that in literature classes they will only discusses what they love. (which often means books like Twilight or Harry Potter) People with this immature attitude often drop out or learn to hate literature, once they discover they are not reading and are not going to read what entertains them. I wonder if that friend of Sonja Lyubomirsky had the same problem.

Sonja is a serious academic, so when she said her friend read literature I'm sure she meant "proper" literature.

[Aylinn]

There are plenty of excellent readers who read high brow stuff who were put off literature because of their professors. One of my professors, for instance, instilled a great hatred for Victorian novelists, despite them not being inherently bad.

You are not thinking of the picture widely enough. The study of literature is not primarily concerned with aesthetics. Try reading for alternative textual manuscript editions for hours a day and then you will realize it is not so much fun. I remember spending a month flipping through various pre King James English Bibles as part of one of my courses - not the most interesting of work.

It's not all fun and games.
I know. I just happened to meet people whose attitude seemed to be a joke.

[Ecurb]

At a certain level an academic probably has to be in a university environment (though not in all cases) which is perfectly reasonable to me. My argument pretty much only extends to whether or not getting a BA in a humanities degree is better than just reading an awful lot of very good books on your own time, and I don't think it is.

Reading a lot of good books improves one's breadth of knowledge -- but WRITING about what one has read has value, too. (As far as whether attending University is "better": University Life is fun. In fact, I had so much fun I hadn't time to read all of my assignments. They interfered with more enjoyable, and perhaps more educational activities, like playing sports and chasing women. I read more once I was out of college.)

[YesNo]

Ecurb is probably right: university life is fun. I can't see why anyone would want to miss it. Yeah, it is expensive. However, I suspect it is also financially rewarding when it comes time to get a job.

If you are 18 years old, engaged or married, and already have a job that pays, or even better an income that generates, $100,000, and you have plenty of opportunity to meet interesting people, and you don't care about collegiate sports, college may be unnecessary. Still, what else do you have to do?

[JBI]

Ecurb is probably right: university life is fun. I can't see why anyone would want to miss it. Yeah, it is expensive. However, I suspect it is also financially rewarding when it comes time to get a job.

If you are 18 years old, engaged or married, and already have a job that pays, or even better an income that generates, $100,000, and you have plenty of opportunity to meet interesting people, and you don't care about collegiate sports, college may be unnecessary. Still, what else do you have to do?

Fun is what you do when you have money. After four years with a mass of debt, fun will seem not particularly worth it to most people.

The real problem with English is it is too young and full of young people who think they know what they are talking about - I would know, as I was one of them.

[YesNo]

You're right, JBI, about the perspective. If one needs debt to get the degree, one will need to be convinced one can cover that debt later. Bankruptcy may be an option if all else fails. Also, one may need whatever job one currently has to keep one's family alive and this may prohibit taking the time to get the degree assuming one can pass the classes to stay in the program.

I don't know if we are at that point yet, but if the jobs aren't there justifying the price and time of the education whatever the degree, the price of the education will have to drop or subsidies increased because the number of people able to pay those prices will drop.

[mal4mac]

Reading a lot of good books improves one's breadth of knowledge -- but WRITING about what one has read has value, too.

So buy pen and paper!


(As far as whether attending University is "better": University Life is fun. In fact, I had so much fun I hadn't time to read all of my assignments. They interfered with more enjoyable, and perhaps more educational activities, like playing sports and chasing women...

I think these activities happen outside university as well.

For me, life was more fun after university. If you find the right job, with a good boss & interesting work, then you aren't risking getting yet another bad lecturer, and yet another bad course. So why go to university at all? One of my best week's work was work experience at 15 in a local bank. The boss was such a nice chap, and it was such a pleasant place to work. He also gave a big hint that there might be a job there if I fancied it after finishing school at 16. I often wonder what life would have been like if I'd gone that route...nice easy bank job... plenty of time for reading in my spare time. I'd tell a 15 year old in the same position today: take the bank job!

[JBI]

So buy pen and paper!



I think these activities happen outside university as well.

For me, life was more fun after university. If you find the right job, with a good boss & interesting work, then you aren't risking getting yet another bad lecturer, and yet another bad course. So why go to university at all? One of my best week's work was work experience at 15 in a local bank. The boss was such a nice chap, and it was such a pleasant place to work. He also gave a big hint that there might be a job there if I fancied it after finishing school at 16. I often wonder what life would have been like if I'd gone that route...nice easy bank job... plenty of time for reading in my spare time. I'd tell a 15 year old in the same position today: take the bank job!

I spent more time in the library than at home, burning through 2000+pages of novels and rubbish reading a week. Training myself to read Chinese also became a 20 hour a week enterprise, which continues to this day. There was very little fun about it, given that I did not skimp or cheat on anything - and in the end it ended up with a degree beside my name that nobody cares about.

We like to think it is somewhat important, but ultimately it isn't. The fact of the matter is, life is about who you meet more than what you know, and university though helpful in meeting one kind of person, rather in my opinion encourages the ignoring of many other people.

Taking as an option 100 000$ or a degree, I know which I would take. In that sense, one would probably learn more by using the money to travel to other places and interact with people, and perhaps pick up languages and fluency with cultures. Sure one may need to return to the degree later, but ultimately as a mature student, one would be able to better study the arts.

That's what one of my friends did anyway - he went to China at age 18 and mastered the language, then came back and did a degree in engineering. It isn't that he wasn't ready for university, or that he looked down on it, but rather that he realized the degree without practical experience would only take him so far. Rather, with his time abroad, work experience, and language abilities, he can apply virtually anywhere in the world now and get a job.

[YesNo]

Second guessing one's past choices keeps one in the past. I can sort of see if one didn't go to college, one might have similar regrets: "Dang, if I only went to college...."

[AuntShecky]

Bankruptcy may be an option if all else fails.
.

I'm not sure that's really true.

I remember hearing a few years back something about Congress having passed a law exempting student loans from bankruptcy cases. And, unlike other debts which fall under a statute of limitations,* any student loans one may have occurred NEVER get written off. So the creditors can chase you down like Harpies for decades.

*
Would the famous Venus deMilo--the one without the arms--be a "statue of limitations"?

[YesNo]

Another good reason to avoid debt. I suspect the student's parents have to co-sign for the loan, so they would be the ones who would be responsible to pay the loan back.

[Clopin]

"Taking as an option 100 000$ or a degree, I know which I would take. In that sense, one would probably learn more by using the money to travel to other places and interact with people, and perhaps pick up languages and fluency with cultures. Sure one may need to return to the degree later, but ultimately as a mature student, one would be able to better study the arts."

Watch out... Neely might not want to talk to you anymore if you keep it up. I mean Melville wrote Moby Dick after consulting wikipedia and youtube right? Do you really think learning outside a university is possible? *scoff*

[YesNo]

As a practical matter, I'd take the $100,000 and use it to pay for tuition to get the degree.

[Clopin]

Oh so now you are in favour of courses 'bucko?' Make up your mind. As I said, fine, you can think what you want. People can read what you have put and what I have put and come to their own conclusions as I am not wasting my time on you.

You never actually responded to anything that I said and when I questioned a few of your points of reasoning you abruptly decided that "some people just like arguing and you wouldn't waste your time with me". You never explained why self learning was necessarily inferior, you never addressed cases like Hemingway and Melville (among many many others) who were entirely self taught and vastly more educated than yourself or the average -and above average- degree holder. This is your second iteration of the sentiment that you are "not wasting time on me" so am I to assume that 'wasting time' only refers to 'addressing my point of view' and doesn't extend to say, spending time writing snarky posts utterly devoid of substance?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yawn. Try re-reading my posts it might sink in...you will find I have more than adequately responded to your trollish nonsense.

[Hwo Thumb]

I'm not arguing with people on forums because as I have other things to do. I have already wasted enough time on you... Some people just like to argue for the sake of it.
Says he's backing out of the argument because he has other things to do.

Continues to argue.


People can read what you have put and what I have put and come to their own conclusions as I am not wasting my time on you...
Yawn. Try re-reading my posts it might sink in...you will find I have more than adequately responded to your trollish nonsense.

Continues to insist that he is not wasting his time on you. Then calls you a troll for DARING to use logic on him

Neely logic!

[Clopin]

How is suggesting that self education is a valid possibility and then providing examples of such possibly to be regarded as trolling? JBI said something similar to myself and I don't see anyone accusing him of being a troll. Poor form amigo.

[LitNetIsGreat]

OK, do you and the new poster, with no respect, want me to go over it again very slowly? Do I have to cut into my chess time because you are seemingly unable to read back over what has been said?

[Hwo Thumb]

You hear that Clopin? "New poster with no respect!" "Cut into my chess time!" Not only am I inferior to him because I don't spend as much time arguing with strangers on the internet, but he plays chess! He must be super smart and more logical than us because he is a chess player and definitely not being pretentious by mentioning his smart-person hobbies at us!

[/sarcasm]
Does that mean I can say "I don't have time to be vitriolically sarcastic to you, Neely, I have to get back to writing a novel?"

Because that's true.

See, at this point, I don't even care whether Neely is right or not, I'm siding with Clopin because between the two of them, he is the only one not acting like a teenager.
Edit: Also he's from England, and all English people are smart.

[LitNetIsGreat]

OK, hopefully a quick cut and paste job will satisfy you then maybe I can be left in peace?

We are first introduced to the joys of Clopin here where he attacks another member and their decision to study:


You know the government didn't 'earn' that money right? That's money other people provided to pay for services which are supposed to be useful to them, which probably doesn't include your two useless, indulgent degrees. The cushy government job you mention just adds to your guilt amigo.

From which some 'logic' suggests he doesn't particular care for degrees. Note the words 'useless' and 'indulgent.' Now what does that suggest? Also note the tone in which his views are expressed...some might say not particularly pleasant, but unfortunately that seems to be the way Litnet is going these days. Main thing to note however is that degrees are 'useless' and people taking them are 'indulgent.'


Besides I see no problem with people getting trades or learning real professions and actually having to earn a living. Anybody can self educate, get a library card they are free. You can even download the curriculum from top schools directly from their websites and watch many lectures online. Education is the cheapest it's been in the history of mankind, but that useless piece of paper that qualifies you to do absolutely nothing? Yes that's an expansive scam.

Note 'real' professions suggesting that jobs in the humanities, what exactly I'm not sure, are not proper jobs. 'Useless piece of paper' and 'scam' also suggest degrees are not of any value.


Also the quality of a university education seems to be complete crap nowadays. My girlfriends room mate is a business student and she hasn't read a book outside of the classroom (so she reads maybe ten books a year) in her entire life aside from trite **** like Harry Potter and Janet Evanovich. The courses she's enrolled in include; public speaking, a history of the Beatles, astronomy and greek mythology and a few retarded business classes where she learns how to shake hands and print business cards.

Anecdote which seems to form a basis for critical insight of the degree process, note the use of 'retarded business classes' which to me suggestions he doesn't give much value to it. Or am I pushing that argument?


Yes that's realy terrible... being expected to pay back money you borrowed. My heart weeps for people who expected to be able to spend four to six years critiquing Herzog films, talking about Andy Warhol and reading Russian poetry on the federal dime without having to be responsible for their own spending and then 'discovering' that the hackneyed education they picked up is totally worthless regarding absolutely everything.

'Hackneyed education' fits in with a theme against degrees which I am noticing...


Canada (where I live) has such a shortage of skilled tradespeople and frankly unskilled workers that the country is going so far as to import labour for decently paid and available positions, and yet all the 'smart' people are employed at Starbucks with their liberal arts degrees. The stigma against trades and actually working for a living is perpetuated by such idiotic buffoons that it pains me to even think about all the degrees handed out to these imbeciles annually.

The myth of the shortage of skill workers was addressed. Again the attack on degrees and the people with them. It is not difficult to also suggest that the poster is jealous of these 'idiotic buffoons' these 'imbeciles.' Again though it doesn't take a genius to see the hatred of the educational system and those who study in it.

---

When did I suggest getting rid of 'the arts'? This is a totally fallacious, probably intentional, misunderstanding on your part; the idea that without people going and getting pointless degrees nobody would read or contribute to art. I don't have a degree and I read ten books last month, it's really easy to do... I went to the library, took them out and then read them, it was free as well.

Which as I say suggests the poster equally values self-study to university.


That was one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Congrats.

I was going to just leave it at that, but here I'll just go and point out why your post was totally retarded and betrayed a stunning lack of logical cohesion in your thought process.

It is a shame that Litnet has descended to the level of YouTube, but there you go.


You start by countering my suggestion that reading classic works of literature/non fiction is a valid educative process and an autodidactic education can yield as many benefits as taking a degree by suggesting that this is the equivalent to watching youtube videos on medicine. What makes you say that? First of all, medicine is largely a trade which requires sophisticated tools, machinery and use of fine motor skills and the failure to perform adequately can result in loss of life or debilitating injury for patients. I also don't believe you can learn to be a carpenter by reading books on carpentry; you have to actually go out and build things to master the technique. Similarly you can not learn to paint like Rembrandt solely from reading books on painting, and in all of these fields dedicated hands on training will be more valuable than book learning (youtube videos might often actually be of use though).


Now it was my assumption that this thread was largely considering degrees in liberal arts and humanities (a degree in medicine is obviously very valuable) in which case reading the actual classic works and criticism which are the curriculum of said university degrees can't really be dismissed as "watching videos on youtube" because that's simply... not a fair comparison.


You next move on to Wikipedia and mcdonalds (which I never mentioned) and bring up closing down universities and replacing them with supermarkets and fast food restaurants as some sort of horrible anti education dystopia which I suppose my ideas on self educating would naturally bring about.

I have plenty of friends with "complete degrees" and they haven't opened a book in years and they know absolutely nothing because getting a BA with almost purely elective courses of dubious educational merit is totally possible and in fact easy to do.

Now for some people who are serious scholars and researchers universities are invaluable, but for most people you can educate yourself just fine without spending the hundred grand.


Already addressed most of this, though another anecdote about those with 'dubious' degrees. I agreed with the fact that you can educated your fine and that degrees are over-priced. I also provided a link, Future Learn, where one can do this for free, though these courses are in the early stages of development they at least give yourself some form of structure often lacking when you try to self-study. (And also the problem with self-study is that there are no 'must dos' it is doubtful you are going to turn in essays/presentations which force you to do the work, find the sources etc week in week out.)
…


No... I never said that. I said that the education is expensive and possible to obtain without that expense. I never said that a university education is bad, just that it's not necessarily better than self education and not always (or even often when it comes to humanities) worth the price of admission.

Hold on a minute. There are a few words in bold quoted above which suggest otherwise I think.


I pointed out that quite often university graduates don't know very much to show that things like a degree/university courses in themselves are quite meaningless. The point is that if someone really wants to learn they will do so, in a classroom or on their own, and if they just want the degree they can obtain that without learning much at all.

Unbelievable generalisation. 'University graduates don't know very much..." I did agree that there are people who don't make the most of the university experience and just get the degree with minimal work, however so what? This is life.


A lot of these degrees are easy to do. Every idiot straight out of high school nowadays gets a degree in some sort of bologna and they end up paying for it while working retail for minimum wage.

Also your post was not perfectly accurate and I addressed why in my post. You chose to ignore that of course and focused on one small sentence to draw your inane conclusion of my meaning and point, which you got wrong.

For sure some are easier than others, but all require at least three years work and endless essays/exams/presentations and again so what? Are you suggesting that they have to run their futures by you? Let people study what they want to.
…


Nelly in my own studies I am only interested in humanities fields. It would be flagrantly against my own self interest and convictions to suggest that studying literature, history, art and philosophy is lesser than science, medicine, technology or mathematics. Kindly stick to responding to things which I have said when you are arguing with me. Yes you point out above that you're also considering other peoples views and generalizing, but that wasn't exactly clear until your most recent post.

This is debatable. I think if you cared to try you could find cases of very inexpert, stupid and destructive professors teaching at universities throughout the world at any given time.

Yes and you can also find fantastic professors full of passionate and knowledge, but why not focus on the negatives eh?


"Furthermore, you have potential access to some of the best reading material and resources not readily available to the general public."

Some examples please.

OK, I didn't give you an example before but if you match my city's central library vs the three university libraries it contains about 1/10 the number of books available that are any good. My own bedroom has about three/four times more books on literature(and that's not that many) than my two local library branches put together. The local libraries are targeted more for older people who want books from writers like Catherine Cookson. Good luck with your self-education there. I suspect it is very much the same for most places in the UK, baring perhaps the London libraries or central library in places like Glasgow or Edinburgh.


Why? That potential is limitless. Unless you are telling me you've gone through the entire contents of all of the libraries in your area. Also am I supposed to be in complete isolation? I post on forums online to get other peoples opinions on what they've read and I have my own friends and acquaintances offline to speak to about what I've read.

See above regarding libraries. I am surprised that you get anything from discussing with us imbeciles with degrees on Litnet.


What do you mean you 'suppose' it's possible? It's a demonstrated reality and it doesn't take much searching to find a list of people who published significant works, furthered their fields of research/thought or achieved a real depth of knowledge despite never setting foot inside a university. Goethe, Hemingway, Borges, da Vinci, Gorky, and Melville to name just a few.

I think it's pretty much anyone. If you can graduate high school you can graduate with a BA in something.

More anecdotes and flawed logic (logic that some seem to admire). These writers don't have degrees - therefore university is pointless. Same as: Richard Branson left school without any qualifications and is now a multi-millionaire - therefore if you want to be a multi-millionaire leave school without any qualifications. A dog has four legs and is an animal - therefore all animals have four legs, same sort of so called 'logic.'


I honestly never made half the claims you're ascribing to me in this post. I've also never (nope not once) suggested that a self education is "better" than a university education. You could really stand to take some reading comprehension courses bucko.

I hope the irony is not lost here. You have spent all of your posts making comments against courses and degrees and then suggest I go on one to improve my reading comprehension!! You never suggested self education is better? What those pointless 'retarded' courses...

…

Watch out... Neely might not want to talk to you anymore if you keep it up. I mean Melville wrote Moby Dick after consulting wikipedia and youtube right? Do you really think learning outside a university is possible? *scoff*

You never actually responded to anything that I said and when I questioned a few of your points of reasoning you abruptly decided that "some people just like arguing and you wouldn't waste your time with me". You never explained why self learning was necessarily inferior, you never addressed cases like Hemingway and Melville (among many many others) who were entirely self taught and vastly more educated than yourself or the average -and above average- degree holder. This is your second iteration of the sentiment that you are "not wasting time on me" so am I to assume that 'wasting time' only refers to 'addressing my point of view' and doesn't extend to say, spending time writing snarky posts utterly devoid of substance?

Never explained why self learning was necessarily inferior? Do you skip over my post I will copy for you below? On the last note about snarky posts devoid of substance I'll just leave to you, seeing as you are pretty good at it with your anecdotes, flawed 'logic' and your way with addressing other posters and their 'retarded' posts.

Post where I stated why self learning is inferior:

University courses offer a structured approach to learning, guided by absolute experts in the field. Furthermore, you have potential access to some of the best reading material and resources not readily available to the general public. You study in an environment of other learners in which you can bounce ideas around, share notes or catch up on things you might have missed. Pit this against a library card and a sole learner and it is very difficult to match the potential for learning. Yes I suppose it is possible, but not likely. And yes there are lazy people on degrees who don't do the reading vs people not on the courses who do, but so what? The potential learning with university support vs without it is clearly better and anybody who thinks not is deluded.

[Hwo Thumb]

My only question is this: You keep attacking Clopin's argument that a degree in something "soft" isn't worth the time, money, or effort. But he's given examples, anecdotes, evidence, logical reasons, and all you're doing is nitpicking and reinterpreting what he says to make him look bad. What job do you get with a degree in history? Or art? Or - God forbid - Art history?

If you're interested in doing what you love, and drawing or writing or studying history is what you love, then maybe it would be worth it, but only because it gives you credibility. If you're interested in actually getting better at the subject, usually being self-taught is better. I have several friends who are amazing artists and they've never taken a class in their life. Getting a degree wouldn't make them much better, it would just lend them credibility.

Besides, people are different. You can't definitely say that a degree is better than being self taught, because sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Some computer scientists state that a mix between university taught and self taught programmers is best because the university taught ones know how to get things done and the self taught ones tend to be more creative and find unique solutions.

Also, your arguments seem to be rapidly fluctuating between logic and attacking your opponents character, then stating in a rather pretentious way that you're done with this argument.

Edit: And yes, I understand the irony in making a joke about you being pretentious and then accusing you of attacking other poster's character, but the difference is that I had grounds for that, and if you call me out on it, it makes you a hypocrite.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My only question is this: You keep attacking Clopin's argument that a degree in something "soft" isn't worth the time, money, or effort. But he's given examples, anecdotes, evidence, logical reasons, and all you're doing is nitpicking and reinterpreting what he says to make him look bad. What job do you get with a degree in history? Or art? Or - God forbid - Art history?

If you're interested in doing what you love, and drawing or writing or studying history is what you love, then maybe it would be worth it, but only because it gives you credibility. If you're interested in actually getting better at the subject, usually being self-taught is better. I have several friends who are amazing artists and they've never taken a class in their life. Getting a degree wouldn't make them much better, it would just lend them credibility.

Besides, people are different. You can't definitely say that a degree is better than being self taught, because sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Some computer scientists state that a mix between university taught and self taught programmers is best because the university taught ones know how to get things done and the self taught ones tend to be more creative and find unique solutions.

Also, your arguments seem to be rapidly fluctuating between logic and attacking your opponents character, then stating in a rather pretentious way that you're done with this argument.

He has given some anecdotes...I am not reinterpreting what he says, it is there in black and white. I have even highlighted relevant points for you and his character speaks for itself. I have simply copied and pasted his posts. He is the one calling people with degrees 'imbeciles' and calling people's posts 'retarded' is that not so?

I mean you make a statement here: If you're interested in actually getting better at the subject, usually being self-taught is better.

I mean this is opinion with no evidence...it is worth nothing. What are you saying, if you want to get better at something struggle on your own and seek no help or opinion from those better than you, or with those with more knowledge on the subject, for this is inferior?

[Hwo Thumb]

If you're interested in actually getting better at the subject, usually being self-taught is better
What I mean by this is that often the best way to become a better artist is to draw. The best way to become a better coder is to code. The best way to become a better writer is to read and write. You can attend all the lectures you want, and ace all the classes but it doesn't change the fact that if you never do any hands on work, all the research in the world is worth nothing. Universities provide opportunities for hands on experience, but it's seldom opportunities that wouldn't be available to you outside the school.

Although I will admit, you're right. That statement is an opinion. It just happens to be one that holds true for me. I learn better on my own, and I can understand why others might not. The best way is likely a compromise between the two.

[Clopin]

Finally. Now lets get crackin.


From which some 'logic' suggests he doesn't particular care for degrees. Note the words 'useless' and 'indulgent.' Now what does that suggest? Also note the tone in which his views are expressed...some might say not particularly pleasant, but unfortunately that seems to be the way Litnet is going these days. Main thing to note however is that degrees are 'useless' and people taking them are 'indulgent.'

I was responding to a few users here who were lamenting that there wasn't a system put in place in Canada whereby low income earners would be ineligible for repayment on student loans. This tickles my ire particularly because the assumption is that other people should be fitting their bills while they live and study for four years. In this context (where you are not in a position to repay loans you've taken out, and expect not to be forced to pay them back) any degree would be indulgent because you are quite honestly indulging your own fancy at the expense of other people. If you aren't earning any money your degree is useless as far as an investment in you is concerned. Now I'm going to offer an anecdote on the condition that you do not take that as your cue to ignore the argument I've put forth already, okay?; here goes. At my place of work (in Canada), there's an Australian security guard who is about forty five years old, makes minimum wage and went to school for "free" in Australia. This means the government - see taxpayers - spent elaborate sums on his needless education only to see him working a chump job in Canada and paying no taxes of his own. Now obviously you can't force people to stay in their home countries after they receive a subsidised education but I suspect that the investment doesn't often result in a decent return in the case of state subsidised education. But wait! I can see it's already on the tip of your tongue (or finger); "education isn't about employment opportunities or returns on an investment it's an enrichment of the life and no price can be put on something like that". Indeed, but in that case if all the education is going to do is enrich your life then maybe you should pay for it, or in the case of having taken out a loan, repay that loan.


Note 'real' professions suggesting that jobs in the humanities, what exactly I'm not sure, are not proper jobs. 'Useless piece of paper' and 'scam' also suggest degrees are not of any value.

Jobs in humanities can be professions, writing is a profession. Here I applied clumsy wording and don't mean to condemn the humanities so completely, but in context I simply meant a profession which will always be sort of... self actualizing? A carpenter can always carpent, a plumber can always plumb, but there's no guarantee a university graduate can necessarily do anything. And yes, my suggestion was that in many cases degrees are valueless, an assertion I have had proven to me time and time again in my own personal life. Also please note the word degree is used, and not education.


Hold on a minute. There are a few words in bold quoted above which suggest otherwise I think.

re - never having said a university education is bad.

Perhaps I should have phrased this to say that a university education is not necessarily bad. That said the level of education I have observed among my peers who are university students is very very low and I stand by that.


Unbelievable generalisation. 'University graduates don't know very much..." I did agree that there are people who don't make the most of the university experience and just get the degree with minimal work, however so what? This is life.

"Quite often"
"Quite often university graduates don't know very much"

Try to read more thoroughly next time. I also note a trend here where you bold a very small section of my posts and ignore the comparative bulk of my point.


More anecdotes and flawed logic (logic that some seem to admire). These writers don't have degrees - therefore university is pointless.

The misinterpretation of my statement here is absolutely staggering. I never said that university is pointless because you can educate yourself without it. I was using those examples to prove to you that self education to a very sophisticated level is possible as you seemed to doubt that to be the case. I figured that examples of famous writers who were uncontestably well read, learned, educated and became such without entering a university would prove my point. It did, but of course you ignored that and pretended I was saying something completely different.


Same as: Richard Branson left school without any qualifications and is now a multi-millionaire - therefore if you want to be a multi-millionaire leave school without any qualifications. A dog has four legs and is an animal - therefore all animals have four legs, same sort of so called 'logic.'

This is nothing near to what I suggested.

Take what I actually said below

"What do you mean you 'suppose' it's possible? It's a demonstrated reality and it doesn't take much searching to find a list of people who published significant works, furthered their fields of research/thought or achieved a real depth of knowledge despite never setting foot inside a university. Goethe, Hemingway, Borges, da Vinci, Gorky, and Melville to name just a few."

And kindly tell me where you see the logical discrepancy? I am responding directly to your statement that "you suppose" (indicating doubt) that it's possible to become very well educated on your own. These individuals are very well educated and they did so by themselves, this proves that it is indeed possible and your supposition can happily morph to certainty. In no way did I ever state that the existence of self educated individuals made the process of obtaining a degree useless.


I hope the irony is not lost here. You have spent all of your posts making comments against courses and degrees and then suggest I go on one to improve my reading comprehension!! You never suggested self education is better? What those pointless 'retarded' courses...

Some courses are pointless and retarded, not all of them. Thank you for demonstrating further your lack of reading comprehension. Honestly the lack of logical consistency and intellectual honesty (you must be aware here that you are misquoting me on purpose) displayed by yourself in this argument just further reinforces my "university graduates/students are dullards", stance.


He has given some anecdotes...I am not reinterpreting what he says

hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Clopin]

Looking at that nice post I took time and care to write and just imagining how neely will completely ignore all of the actual points I wanted to make and focus on my using examples from my life to explain my position (the horror) is a little frustrating. Neely, please respond reasonably to my post (I hear there's this new thing people are trying where you actually take into account everything the other person says during an argument and respond to that, instead of just picking at little bits out of context) or I will have to stop replying.

[Hwo Thumb]

I'm going to back out of this argument on the grounds that Clopin is taking Neely's place as the obnoxious one and Neely is making good points and I'm no longer sure I want to be on anybody's side here. I think we can all stand to learn a lesson about arguing with strangers on the internet here: Nobody is right.

Also, Clopin, using the word "retarded" to mean "stupid" is incredibly offensive. They're not the same thing. Being retarded is an actual mental condition. It's tough for people to live with it, it's tough on the people around them to live with it, and using it as an insult is awful. You can use all the big words you want, but including that one in that context just dropped my opinion of you more than enough to compensate for your extensive vocabulary.

And that second post is almost as condescending and pretentious as Neely's "I have to go play chess" line.

[Clopin]

Being stupid is an actual mental condition and it's tough for people to live with. Seriously though no offense was meant and I don't think I've ever seen anyone take particular issue with my using that word. I'm sorry if you did though as it wasn't my intention to debase people who have real mental illness and I had thought that given the context of my post the word wouldn't bring up a very literal interpretation.

[Hwo Thumb]

Being stupid is an actual mental condition and it's tough for people to live with. Seriously though no offense was meant and I don't think I've ever seen anyone take particular issue with my using that word. I'm sorry if you did though as it wasn't my intention to debase people who have real mental illness and I had thought that given the context of my post the word wouldn't bring up a very literal interpretation.
Remember when you were in middle school and high school and your friends would use "Gay" to mean stupid?

"I got an F on the chem test, Mr. S is so gay!"
"I know, right? Chemistry is gay!"

It's basically taking an actual word and turning it into an insult, which destroys the original meaning of the word. I understand you didn't mean any harm, but be sure to watch out for that in the future.

[Volya]

I'm going to back out of this argument on the grounds that Clopin is taking Neely's place as the obnoxious one and Neely is making good points and I'm no longer sure I want to be on anybody's side here. I think we can all stand to learn a lesson about arguing with strangers on the internet here: Nobody is right.

Also, Clopin, using the word "retarded" to mean "stupid" is incredibly offensive. They're not the same thing. Being retarded is an actual mental condition. It's tough for people to live with it, it's tough on the people around them to live with it, and using it as an insult is awful. You can use all the big words you want, but including that one in that context just dropped my opinion of you more than enough to compensate for your extensive vocabulary.

And that second post is almost as condescending and pretentious as Neely's "I have to go play chess" line.

Methinks you should have realized this from the start my friend :(

I second your point about the use of the world 'retarded'

[Hwo Thumb]

Methinks you should have realized this from the start my friend :(


Well, less of a lesson and more of a reminder.

[Clopin]

I think we can all stand to learn a lesson about arguing with strangers on the internet here: Nobody is right.


This is smug and idiotic. What exactly do you think nobody is right about? Proper conduct of debate is not the issue here. Clearly there is an argument being made about whether or not self education to a high level is possibly and clearly there are both correct and incorrect statements which can be made. The fact that the argument is taking place online is irrelevant and the fact that certain people contributing to the argument have spoken rudely to each other is also irrelevant. This rudeness changes literally nothing about the argument and you are making a gross ad hominem when you suggest that someone is more/less correct or even less logical because they are being rude.

[Hwo Thumb]

This is smug and idiotic. What exactly do you think nobody is right about? Proper conduct of debate is not the issue here. Clearly there is an argument being made about whether or not self education to a high level is possibly and clearly there are both correct and incorrect statements which can be made. The fact that the argument is taking place online is irrelevant and the fact that certain people contributing to the argument have spoken rudely to each other is also irrelevant. This rudeness changes literally nothing about the argument and you are making a gross ad hominem when you suggest that someone is more/less correct or even less logical because they are being rude.

So to summarize, "You can be as much of an a-hole as you want on the internet, and if you're technically right, it's okay."

I would disagree with your statement that "Proper conduct of debate is not the issue here." If you can't hold an debate and respect each other at the same time, you should not be debating anything, because you're a jerk and nobody cares about your opinion. (I'm using a general plural "you" here, I'm not directly targeting you.)
I think you're interpreting my statement too literally. (Needless to say, that is a personal "you.") I don't actually mean it is impossible to make a correct statement when discussing something on the internet, I mean that said correct statement will be crushed under a pile of... well, internet... to the point where it doesn't matter that you're right.
Also, "idiotic" is better than "retarded," but we still need to work on the namecalling. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it stupid.

But maybe you're just unhappy that you no longer have my support?

[qimissung]

Reminder
Please do not personalize your comments
And don't argue
Please keep this a debate. All sides are making points that are worth consideration.

[JBI]

Could you guys stop arguing like children? Seriously, this thread will be locked. Clopin, you would make your posts much better if you stopped presenting them as if you were right and the whole world is filled with idiots. You merely provoke ridicule that way. And Neely, you and I both know a degree is certification for unemployment. There are root issues in the university education system, and though not all degrees are useless, many of the students who take such courses are useless to the field of study. In that sense, they perhaps could be better trained to pursue other things; it would generally help with allocating different skilled labor for the betterment of a country.

In a sense we cannot discuss degrees without their function. If a university degree does not function to properly set up a student for their life (which is one of its goals, especially by the marketing now) or does not actually work to provide a service, or could provide things better, then we legitimately should criticize.

In my opinion, arts classes should be more strict, and less fun, so that they only encourage the truly devoted to pursue studies. A class should not be so big, and people who do not have anything to contribute should not pay tens of thousands of dollars to do so.

[Clopin]

Clopin, you would make your posts much better if you stopped presenting them as if you were right and the whole world is filled with idiots.

In this case I am right and the world is filled with idiots. Also everything you said in your post is a reiteration of what I've been saying for the entire thread. Would you be well pleased with someone quoting your sentences into halves and trying to discredit your logic in that way? Of course not.

[YesNo]

We have two children who are college age and we will be paying for their education. Since we can afford their education and do not need debt, I think the best thing to do is to send them off to college. I understand that a quarter of the college expenses are paid by the families. If they do not get jobs, they can always continue to live with us.

If we could not afford this without debt, I suppose we would take on the debt if it were available. That does put one at risk. Since I am bearish about the economy and feel we are headed for a deflationary depression, that risk appears more real to me than it might to others. But as long as we can get the loan we are not in that depression yet.

Perhaps the best thing is that we could not get the loan. Then what? Then my children would try to enter the job force without first going to college. That would likely increase the local competition for those coffee shop jobs. In general, if people stopped paying for college, consider the unemployment that would occur. All those college age students would be in the job market. All those professors, administrators, service employees supporting the universities would be out of work and looking for jobs. The unemployment rate would rise.

[JBI]

In this case I am right and the world is filled with idiots. Also everything you said in your post is a reiteration of what I've been saying for the entire thread. Would you be well pleased with someone quoting your sentences into halves and trying to discredit your logic in that way? Of course not.

You may be right, congratulations, but that won't make anyone care any more. If you are so right, be right in a peaceful and constructive way, instead of in an obtuse and forceful.

[Ecurb]

A liberal arts education is a luxury rather than a necessity. Families spend $30,000 on new boat or a new car – why not spend it on sending their kids off to college? The investment is not made in the hope of financial return. It is made in the hope that it will give the young adult a chance to learn about himself, to figure out what he wants to do with his life, to improve himself intellectually and to have a chance to hob-nob with other (in the case of selective universities) intelligent and ambitious young people.

Now that Westerners are relatively rich, we can afford to delay adulthood and careerism, and allow our children the chance to develop broad interests, to live in co-ed dorms, and to decide how to make a living after four years of being a dilettante. What’s so horrible about that? (By the way, the same was true of a University education in the past – the landed gentry and the nobility sent their kids off to Oxford or Cambridge. The difference is that a far greater percentage of kids go to college these days, mainly because we (as a society) can afford to send them.)

[YesNo]

I think many parents who are concerned about their children's future do make the investment in education hoping their children will financially benefit by this. We certainly do. It is not like paying for a wedding.

[Ecurb]

Of course parents hope children benefit from their education. But benefits need not be financial, or if they are financial, the benefits can be indirect. University involves not only classes and study, but a social and cultural experience that forms a foundation for one’s future relationships, both social and financial. In the U.S. (not so much in England), professional schools are often delayed until graduate school. Law School, Med School, MBA programs, etc. can be financially lucrative. But the liberal arts education that preceded them is still valuable to doctors, lawyers and business people. It helps them see their professions through a broader lens, and have a more “liberal” view of the world.

In England, lawyers take law as their basic University course, and then “intern” with a firm to become licensed. I don’t doubt they’re just as well trained in the law as American lawyers – but I think they may be lacking something that a history or political science or literature course as an undergraduate may have given them.

[Delta40]

I think many parents who are concerned about their children's future do make the investment in education hoping their children will financially benefit by this. We certainly do. It is not like paying for a wedding.

I'm concerned but my 21 year old simply doesn't want a higher education. I have googled boot camps Australia though... :rolleyes:

[YesNo]

I'm concerned but my 21 year old simply doesn't want a higher education. I have googled boot camps Australia though... :rolleyes:

I dropped out of college the first time I attended right out of high school. It wasn't the grades. I was young and stupid. College seemed like a waste of time.

My parents were pissed, and looking back I see they were probably right.

[Clopin]

A liberal arts education is a luxury rather than a necessity. Families spend $30,000 on new boat or a new car – why not spend it on sending their kids off to college? The investment is not made in the hope of financial return. It is made in the hope that it will give the young adult a chance to learn about himself, to figure out what he wants to do with his life, to improve himself intellectually and to have a chance to hob-nob with other (in the case of selective universities) intelligent and ambitious young people.

This is also what I believe a university education to be for the vast majority of students. Now this is all well and good if you're paying for it out of your own pocket but why exactly is the state expected to subsidize students having a good time and spending four years living a bohemian, carefree life 'hob nobbing' with other academics (or smashing the beer bong at a frat party)? University does broaden the mind and expand the intellect, just like any reading or studying would; but so does travel. By the same token should I expect Canada to pay for me to travel around the world because It will be good for my development as a person? Of course not. Also I know you personally didn't make any remarks regarding state subsidies of education so I'm not having a go at you, I'm just speaking in general.


Now that Westerners are relatively rich, we can afford to delay adulthood and careerism, and allow our children the chance to develop broad interests, to live in co-ed dorms, and to decide how to make a living after four years of being a dilettante. What’s so horrible about that?

Most people aren't rich enough though, so the state picks up the bill.


You may be right, congratulations, but that won't make anyone care any more. If you are so right, be right in a peaceful and constructive way, instead of in an obtuse and forceful.

I have been posting frequently on forums since I was thirteen years old (though much less often lately) and I'm twenty two now. I know you to be a very educated person with a very sensible point of view on every topic I've ever seen you write on. I'm not sure how much familiarity you have with online discussions or even face to face arguments but in my experience people are never willing to concede even the slightest point in their opponents favour. No matter how nicely phrased, no matter how indisputable the logic; the majority of people will simply not budge; rather they will shift the argument, quote half of your sentence, dismiss what you say as trollish nonsense and purport to ignore you. I've seen this pattern repeated by thousands of forum posters in my life. On this board and probably in your personal life you enjoy a well deserved prestige which forces people to take what you have to say seriously and compels them to listen to what you have to say. This is rare and in other situations I think you might be tempted to tell someone to shut their stupid mouths, instead of writing a polite and carefully constructed argument which will be equally ignored as any obnoxious sounding insulting slur.

Also I don't mean to imply that the only reason people take you seriously is because you are a well known forum poster. You have a succinct, peremptory and logical posting style which rarely allows for any real disagreement and you seemingly only post in threads on which you have an extensive knowledge of the topic at hand. That said I have a strong conviction that even the best posts can be chopped up and ignored and ill treated by the worst posters and that insulting people who have it coming now and then never did any harm. I've personally held - in my long posting career, beginning at rank adolescence - some of the most idiotic and ridiculous opinions of anyone and I've been called out for being what I was more times than I can remember or count; it's a good thing frankly.

[YesNo]

Of course parents hope children benefit from their education. But benefits need not be financial, or if they are financial, the benefits can be indirect. University involves not only classes and study, but a social and cultural experience that forms a foundation for one’s future relationships, both social and financial. In the U.S. (not so much in England), professional schools are often delayed until graduate school. Law School, Med School, MBA programs, etc. can be financially lucrative. But the liberal arts education that preceded them is still valuable to doctors, lawyers and business people. It helps them see their professions through a broader lens, and have a more “liberal” view of the world.

In England, lawyers take law as their basic University course, and then “intern” with a firm to become licensed. I don’t doubt they’re just as well trained in the law as American lawyers – but I think they may be lacking something that a history or political science or literature course as an undergraduate may have given them.

What you say makes sense. I can think of three benefits of going to college studying whatever you want, in case someone needs an excuse:

1) Jobs. You will likely get a better job if you go to college. I think I looked this up, but there is no point in referencing a site. Even if you can't get a job the people teaching you got paid and so you helped contribute to the economy as a consumer.

2) Brain plasticity. Since the invention of brain scans in the 1970's, the brain is now viewed as changeable. Giving people challenges stimulates the brain and helps it grow. College is a good place to get those challenges.

3) Social networking and collective unconscious. I'm reading Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler's Connected. They show the influence that our social networks have on us, not only between the people we consciously know, but even those connected to those people whom we don't know. So, a college is beneficial because it sets up an environment where conscious social networking and the resultant collective unconscious can work.

[Hwo Thumb]

...in my experience people are never willing to concede even the slightest point in their opponents favour. No matter how nicely phrased, no matter how indisputable the logic; the majority of people will simply not budge; rather they will shift the argument, quote half of your sentence, dismiss what you say as trollish nonsense and purport to ignore you. I've seen this pattern repeated by thousands of forum posters in my life.

If nobody is ever willing to agree with you in an internet debate, you're either on the wrong forum, arguing with the wrong people, or making the wrong points.

Either that, or you're exaggerating. I discuss things with strangers on the internet, and usually the debates are civil, polite, and either both sides find common ground or somebody wins. It's only when a troll shows up that things go wrong.

edit: I know we're supposed to be talking about the value of a college degree, but I'm only pointing out that while I have nothing against Clopin, and he makes some good points, a lot of his off-topic comments are simply untrue.

[Ecurb]

This is also what I believe a university education to be for the vast majority of students. Now this is all well and good if you're paying for it out of your own pocket but why exactly is the state expected to subsidize students having a good time and spending four years living a bohemian, carefree life 'hob nobbing' with other academics (or smashing the beer bong at a frat party)? University does broaden the mind and expand the intellect, just like any reading or studying would; but so does travel. By the same token should I expect Canada to pay for me to travel around the world because It will be good for my development as a person? Of course not. Also I know you personally didn't make any remarks regarding state subsidies of education so I'm not having a go at you, I'm just speaking in general.
.

The traditional reasons for state-subsidized education (whether at the University level or at lower levels) are the following:

1) Education creates responsible voters and citizens, who better understand the historical, philosophical and social issues addressed by government. Basic literacy (the argument goes) is essential for an informed electorate. A liberal education beyond basic literacy may also be important.
2) An educated citizenry improves society in general – economically, politically and culturally. In addition, isn’t it likely that University Graduates pay more taxes than non-graduates, and thus support the state sponsorship of their own University education?
3) The University infrastructure supports not only educating young people, but also research and intellectual pursuits (on the part of the faculty and grad students) that benefit society as a whole.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, you and I both know a degree is certification for unemployment.

Yes but this is a different matter and I wasn’t talking about degrees in terms of economics or employment prospects. My point was simply that you have a better chance of gaining knowledge, learning, when you have a support network (tutors and other learners), better resources and structure, then you do when you are alone. This and also people should be free to follow the subject that interests them. Personally, I didn’t feel this was all that controversial.

[JBI]

Yes but this is a different matter and I wasn’t talking about degrees in terms of economics or employment prospects. My point was simply that you have a better chance of gaining knowledge, learning, when you have a support network (tutors and other learners), better resources and structure, then you do when you are alone. This and also people should be free to follow the subject that interests them. Personally, I didn’t feel this was all that controversial.
Freedom on their own dollar, sure, why not. But in some places the government pays, which mean the people pay.

As far as I am concerned I think only those who make the cut should make the cut. The no child left behind idea does not work for university. If someone parties and drinks all night, the university should have no reservations about failing them. Literature studies should not be about enjoyment and interest, but should put people to work.

For every serious student there are 10 mediocre ones. This is a reality. In my opinion, the 10 mediocre ones should be failed out in the first year or two.

[Jack of Hearts]

If tuition is expensive, it's only because there's a demographic out there that's willing to pay it.

Whatever you think should be on the other side of a liberal arts education shouldn't be. And isn't.

Universities do not need to filter out good students from bad students. They need to filter out something more related to temperaments or motives or perspectives.

The problem isn't with education. The problem is much worse. The problem is we opt into a bad system.

At present, Jack of Hearts is a university graduate who has read much of the canon, the cornerstones of western philosophy, acquired a second language and written enough analysis to fill a sizable book. Having obtained his diploma, he currently does day labor. You encouraged it and then you subsidized it, America. And the free market says the way we can most value you is like this. It is right, it's just and fair all around.

Rather than being given to a system, if you do x and suffer through blah blah blah years of school, you will assuredly be awarded y-- rather than that, perhaps something more should've been instilled in this generation than what we got. What we got was rote work and dreaming and admiration for anyone else our age who just seemed to be born free.

Maybe we should've been taught how to provide something of value in lieu of being drawn into the herd and pushed toward an ideal/imaginary culture that doesn't exist.

And now, finally, late to the game, we learn. University almost assuredly was a waste, but it's just a symptom of where the illness lies.







J

[tonywalt]

From a business perspective: A higher degree is in large part used as a "screener" by employers as we have to look at so many young candidates. It does not mean they(those with higher degrees) are intelligent, but it may very well reflect that have 'learned how to learn'

[Emil Miller]

This thread has raised some interesting points about the viability of university degrees. Now while they reveal the disparity between science and arts degrees in terms of practical application, there are other considerations at play.
Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.
In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

[Ecurb]

Freedom on their own dollar, sure, why not. But in some places the government pays, which mean the people pay.

As far as I am concerned I think only those who make the cut should make the cut. The no child left behind idea does not work for university. If someone parties and drinks all night, the university should have no reservations about failing them. Literature studies should not be about enjoyment and interest, but should put people to work.

For every serious student there are 10 mediocre ones. This is a reality. In my opinion, the 10 mediocre ones should be failed out in the first year or two.

I'm willing to pay my share. If something is worth doing, it is (often) worth doing badly. If literature majors are mediocre, they are at least learning something about the human condition. Fail the Med Students and Civil Engineers who can't make the grade. We don't want bridges collapsing or surgeries being botched. But let's allow the Literary Scholars to muddle through their Universities, pick up a little culture, and delay their entrance into the work force for a few years. Do we really need to rush our 18-20 year-olds into the Capitalist Grind? Mightn't our societies be improved by civilizing our youth, even if they never produce valuable scholarship? Of course 9/10ths of literature majors are "mediocre"! Not all of them are going to go on to become PhD.s (and even some of those who do will be mediocre). What's so horrible about that? Why should 18 be the arbitrary cut-off line for state-funded education? Or do you want to start failing mediocre 10-year-old students, too, and sending them off to the sweat shops?

What great value do the upper 10% of Literature Majors offer society that the lower 90% do not?

[Jack of Hearts]

Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.

But what you're really arguing about, by implication, is not humanities, but humanities degrees in universities. It's not bi-conditional. You can have humanities without humanities degrees and everything they imply (debt, social conditioning, psychological problems).


In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

Well, at least most people know the brand Shakespeare. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, on the other hand, is less the center piece of reference.

So they're different in that way. Most English speakers have probably heard the name 'Shakespeare,' and probably haven't heard of 'Isambard Kingdom Brunel.'

Wanna know something they have in common? Most English speakers have probably never read either of them, and that's assuming either of them actually ever wrote anything (did Brunel have Twitter? 'Laying tracks, lulz').

But you can say 'Shakespeare is genius!' whether or not you read him, because usually when it's being uttered it's got little to do with Shakespeare at all. There's a price to be paid for that. Somewhere in your soul probably. Fine, you weren't using it anyways.

You can also say '(Ranked university here) is great!' for the same reasons. Fine. The difference between your university and Shakespeare is the difference between opting in actively and opting in conceptually. So your soul dies either way-- that's ok, doesn't exist anyway, why do we scrub ourselves so hard in the shower... You can say 'I went to university!' like it means something. There's a price to be paid for that. Somewhere in your wallet, probably.

No, deeper than that, other people's wallets. You were subsidized. But at least it's socializing. It's cheaper than putting you through the legal system.

What does society do with useless people? Non-STEM, non-vocational degrees or prison.






J


EDIT: The gold will be in this edit. Things really aren't so bad. The secret of life is that it doesn't fit into language or analysis. The trouble arises when we cling to a model we're given that says this and only this and nothing else. You see, phil major and engineering major are playing the same game. In the rules of the game, engineering major is winning. That's the above post. The secret is to quit playing, quit loving what they gave you. It's too hard to stop playing if you love it. Opt out. Because the second secret is, as long as both phil major and engineering major are playing, yes the latter is 'winning' by the rules of the game, but both are still losing by default.

[qimissung]

I think I can agree with the above. Actually, I loved going to college. I loved getting away from home and pretending to be independent. But I really only enjoyed my classes my last year of collegel which is when I started taking English classes for my minor. Somewhere in the intervening years between high school and that moment in time I grew up enough to do them well. I felt like I was on fire.

The thing is college is fine for some and maybe not the right fit for others. My oldest son is bright but he has not liked school since high school. And I deplore the current trend that everyone should go to college. I worked for many years in an inner-city school and while I really wished for that opportunity for them, I was also saddened that during that time all those vocational educational classes disappeared. My students could have used those, too. And I think it's ridiculous that someone must go to school to get entry-level positions in corporations. I think both paths should be equally respected.

[Clopin]

This thread has raised some interesting points about the viability of university degrees. Now while they reveal the disparity between science and arts degrees in terms of practical application, there are other considerations at play.
Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.
In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

So how many more people need to tell you that humanties fields exist independantly of humanities degrees before you stop making this argument. Nobody anywhere in this thread has suggested that society should just do away with the arts so stop arguing against that please.

[Emil Miller]

Of course the humanities exist independent of a degree but it's clear that they can best be understood and advanced by academic means. If this were not the case, colleges engaged in them would be dispensed with: unless one takes the view that these institutions are there simply to make money.
A degree may not be a requirement for the person who makes a discovery that alters the course of human development, but for every genius there are large numbers of people who will contribute collectively to whatever discipline they are engaged in. This is the significance of degrees that allow for a structured approach rather than haphazardly exploiting a possible knack for something.
I started this thread with a quote from a business paper about the number of graduates who are working in menial jobs in the US and UK, so it was only to be expected that some replies would echo a similar negative experience.

[lawpark]

Interesting discussions. Reminded me of an article from about a year ago:

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=57728

My personal feeling is that the push to get students into Humanities are professors - if there are no students, their livelihood is endangered. But the same actually is true for pure science - my personal experience was that Math professors already felt the same way already 20 years ago - with departments with more faculty members than students.

[Clopin]

Of course the humanities exist independent of a degree but it's clear that they can best be understood and advanced by academic means. If this were not the case, colleges engaged in them would be dispensed with: unless one takes the view that these institutions are there simply to make money.
A degree may not be a requirement for the person who makes a discovery that alters the course of human development, but for every genius there are large numbers of people who will contribute collectively to whatever discipline they are engaged in. This is the significance of degrees that allow for a structured approach rather than haphazardly exploiting a possible knack for something.
I started this thread with a quote from a business paper about the number of graduates who are working in menial jobs in the US and UK, so it was only to be expected that some replies would echo a similar negative experience.

It's not the least bit clear that universities provide the "best" way to understand and advance the arts. What is crystal clear however is that a humanities field degree is a very bad investment of your time and money if employment opportunties are your goal.

[Darcy88]

I did really well in my two years of college in the sciences and in the humanities, am quite an expert historian in some areas, but I quite like working in industries which do not require a degree. I prefer to be an entrepreneur or an artist or an athlete. Also, I love working in the restaurant industry, even the lowly jobs where I'm no more than a scullion. There is something nice about just cleaning, chopping, cooking..... not having to worry about a million things, not having much responsibility, being able to let the imagination drift while muscle memory sort of mechanically takes over the simple tasks set before one. It is humbling but it is also enjoyable to work those kind of jobs. I might never finish my degree. I am going to take the law school admission test and the medical college admission test, but I doubt I'll pursue either degree.