What Price a Degree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

... 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!

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

... your post was totally retarded ...

---

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

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

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:

Quote:

---

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/

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

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.)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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!

Quote:

---

(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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

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...."