What Price a Degree?

[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?