Printable View
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.)
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.
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.
I'm concerned but my 21 year old simply doesn't want a higher education. I have googled boot camps Australia though... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
My parents were pissed, and looking back I see they were probably right.
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.Quote:
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.
Most people aren't rich enough though, so the state picks up the bill.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
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.
The traditional reasons for state-subsidized education (whether at the University level or at lower levels) are the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
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.
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.Quote:
Neely, you and I both know a degree is certification for unemployment.
Freedom on their own dollar, sure, why not. But in some places the government pays, which mean the people pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
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.
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