Is College Worth the Time and Money?
Side Score: 52
Side Score: 53
Knowledge is onen-sourced. You should know colleges shouldn't be the only source of your education. The fact that you think it's a choice between education and stupidity shows you think education and knowledge is limited to college. With that perspective you may not be a creative and flexible person
I'm not sure what side to pick because I only agree with one aspect. College is worth the time (if it's spent getting an actual education and not doing idiotic stuff), but not worth the money.... especially if you don't have the money. I'll first hand say it's not worth getting into debt for. I mean, maybe 10k of debt; you can pay that off in about 2 years, but 40k? 60k? 80k? No. When it climbs up that high in order to get a degree in something you want to do, it's pretty ridiculous. I don't think getting the degree will be worth it if you're going to be spending 40 years of your life paying it off. What a waste of future money that could finally be spent traveling or something (on vacations). If you happen to be rich and/or manage to get a full scholarship (or close to it), then you better think your time is worth it, because it least you'd have the opportunity to take the time and low cost out of your own pocket.
Just because there were several people that were successful without a college education, does not mean college is not worth it. Almost every person that is that successful without college is famous for writing novels, acting, singing, etc. The average person will not be that famous and thus we all kind of need higher education to be able to get jobs. It looks really good on a resume. :p
Education is always worth the time and money one puts into it providing one applies themselves to the tasks at hand. It may cost a lot to get an education but it will cost you more in the long run if you don't. If you're not college material at least try to get some further education in a field that may suit you so that you can enter that field with the tools you need.
This is clearly not a yes/no question, because it depends on what you want to do in life, but whatever. I would say that for most people, such as myself, college is a good investment, because it opens up an entirely different strata of career opportunities that simply aren't available to non-graduates. Four years of your life and some student loans in exchange for a higher paying, more rewarding career (hopefully) seems worth it to me.
Most of the time when people get good jobs without going to college, is when they know the right people who can pull some strings, but that's not always promised. Now if you go to college and get some type of degree, your chances are better in getting a good job and maybe alot easier and quicker.
High school graduates today are not able to obtain the number of high-paying jobs that were once available in the past. The U.S. jobs transformed from a manufacturing-based economy to an economy based on knowledge. I think that a college education today can be compared to that of a high school education forty years ago.
I'm gonna say no. This article makes a pretty good case, imo.
You can easily learn stuff without college, via books and the internet. Sure college provides some nice social opportunities, and universities conduct useful research, but if we want to do those things, we should create separate institutions that are far more cost effective.
The one reason to go to college is to signal competence to potential employers. I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields.
Some of the article makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't.
The "Why your parents wanted you to go to college" is totally wrong. Maybe some parents somewhere just wanted to get their kids out of the house, but the vast majority of parents actually want to help their children succeed. How do you explain first generation college students from low-income families where their parents would be much better off if kids didn't go to college, but stayed home and worked for the family? Instead they sacrifice and work hard to allow their kids to attend college and have opportunities they didn't have.
The "Colleges- Which ones are better" is also fairly incorrect. For a B.A. degree the best place is probably an Ivy League school. Just because most people are dumb and think that Ivy League schools are better. For a B.S. degree, however, this is absolutely not true. Cornell is the only Ivy League school with a decent science and engineering program, but there are many schools that are significantly more respected in the science and engineering job community than all of the Ivy League schools. Maybe this was one of the sections the author said doesn't apply to B.S. degrees, but I don't know.
The "A college degree translator" while a bit exaggerated is based on truth. Getting a B.A. really doesn't help with job prospects because most B.A. degrees are for majors like philosophy or English. And by getting a B.A. degree you don't learn any skills or knowledge that someone will pay you for. It's really sad when I see college graduates working as cashiers because they spent so much time and money, but it ended up not really helping them.
The "Professors" section is quite wrong also. I can't speak for every professor, but most of them are not at college because "they failed the real test." In fact many professors are so busy with their research so they can get grants and awards that they don't actually care about teaching. Many professors are world-renowned experts who have won Nobel Prizes and other distinguished awards. They conduct ground-breaking research that is contributing to new insight and technological advancement.
Overall the article had some kernels of truth, but was largely exaggerated and incorrect.
You can easily learn stuff without college, via books and the internet.
Most people aren't autodidactic in ability or discipline. What I have learned from my experience with many people who attempt self-learning is that at best they acquire a competent but rudimentary level of knowledge and very little understanding or wisdom. Further it's rare that this kind of knowledge can be applied in a cumulative discourse across disciplines or in-depth, or in practice for that matter, that people who have gone through a university experience can't do better.
Sure college provides some nice social opportunities, and universities conduct useful research, but if we want to do those things, we should create separate institutions that are far more cost effective.
First, interdisciplinary universities are more cost-effective than specialized universities because they incorporate a larger number of paying students who ultimately help in the money making enterprise of universities outside of their tuition. It's one of the reasons why many Ivy-league schools are so expensive; they reject over 90% of applicants and have to make up for their functioning costs in other ways.
Second, universities play a major role in human advancement beyond simply making people competent workers. They help people formulate more robust intellectual considerations and conclusions through a process of competition and discussion across classes and disciplines.
The one reason to go to college is to signal competence to potential employers.
It's more than that. It signals that out of the competing field you are above competent and can add to whatever institution you enter.
I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields.
I think this diminishes a part of the point of the university experience. Anyone can be prepared for professional fields. All that would be required is a high school diploma, or some certificate from ITT tech and (other) trade schools. Undergraduate and graduate schools act as secondary and tertiary vetting systems, respectively, that allow people to not simply be competent, but add to human knowledge and achievement.
Most people aren't autodidactic in ability or discipline.
Maybe not. But then, why do people learn in college? Because they are incented to do so via the earning power a degree will bring. A certification process would have the same effect.
Sitting in a lecture hall with a hundred other students while a professor reads a Powerpoint presentation isn't any improvement over reading a well designed website.
interdisciplinary universities are more cost-effective...
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like "universities are cost-effective because students pay tuition." Well that's not cost-effective, that's just offloading the cost onto the students. In my argument I was suggesting that we could have one social structure that exists for the purpose of transitioning adolescents into adulthood and another that facilitates public research, rather than one institution that does a mediocre job at both.
It signals that... [you] can add to whatever institution you enter.
Well that's a rather vague benefit, isn't it? If we want people to have a broad range of knowledge, than that can be incorporated into the aforementioned certification process.
I'm gonna agree with you especially because of " I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields."
makes no sense to me why something totally unrelated should be a threshold that I need to get past first before i get to learn what I really want
I think that only reading, writing, basic math, and memory training (which oddly enough is not taught at all in most schools) should be mandatory for everyone to learn. Rest should be a choice.
But concerning the question at hand "is it worth it" I think the answer has to be Yes, but mainly because of the magic-dust it puts on your CV and connections you are likely to make within the institutions - not because of what is taught and that modern schools are the best way to attain that knowledge
I don't think you're answering the question. You have a good point, but the question was not whether or not the current post-secondary education system is relevant or effective, but whether it is a good decision for an individual to make use of such a system, as it currently is.
That's one way of interpreting the question. But I'm looking at it from the societal level rather than the individual: "Is college currently providing enough value to justify the massive resources we're pumping into it?" If you look at it that way, I think the answer is clearly no. The services it provides can be provided in better ways.
i think it's an outdated stereotype that a person can only get educated by going somewhere outside their home. homeschooled children usually learn more in less time.
true, autodidactics may lack direction and discipline. but the same argument can be made for an actual institution due to parties and other social commitments.
by teaching yourself you tend to learn more and memorize less on the grounds that you actually want to instead of being force-fed material in an order that may not come naturally to you. plus, if you're a genius like einstein or hawking, it can impede your progress to be bogged down with classes and assignments ;)
while a degree may be helpful to attain jobs where they require it as fluff, it doesn't necessarily mean you're worthy. i've seen people sleep-walk through college and somehow still pass, and i've met too many "professionals" who don't know their head from their ass.
while our government makes it easy to go to school with borrowed money, it seems a catch-22 to have to pay it back once you're ready to make money off your new career, leaving you with about as much as you had before you started school, which was the point for going in the first place.
Ben Franklin had this to say about the education system,
"Tom was so learned that he could name a horse in five languages, so knowledgeable he bought a cow to ride on."
Albert Einstein said, "The purpose of an education is to train the mind to think, not to memorize facts."
Is college worth the time and money? Can it make someone have common sense? No, it can not. In fact the more education one has the less common sense they seem to have.
Does college train the mind to think? No, it trains the mind to agree with those things taught. A diploma and one step closer to being a major brown-noser. "The greatest enemy of truth is blind respect for authority." another Einstein.
We have become degreed to death. On-line, mail, or on a campus; they are all pieces of paper. Nothing more than junk mail hanging on the wall.
I don't know what college you attend(ed), but I have yet to have an instructor who doesn't emphasize critical thinking and questioning of what is taught.
Also, you keep quoting Einstein, who went to university, attained a degree, and then became a professor after spending a few years working in a patent office.
you can't just state a fact and pretend it led to another. einstein constantly failed in school and was ridiculed by teachers. his greatest achievements weren't due to anything college-related. he came up with his theories on his own time, not as a result of any class assignment.
You said "who went to university, atteind a degree, and then became a professor..."
those were his mistakes. Plus, even if it isn't. Just because he went to an university more than 50 years ago. I must do as well.?
two different things with the same name aren;t the samething. Agree/disagree guys?
The college Einstein went to was known for being different than tradition colleges. Even with this being the case, he had a very hard time getting his teaching degree. He wrote a thesis on what is wrong with traditional physics and they said, "How dare he." They rejected his paper and he finally gave in and wrote a different paper. A college that proudly boosted it was different was the same in the end.
Einstein knocked colleges because he went to one and taught at one. He never taught for very long, he was generally given an office and left alone. Einstein was also a German that hated Germans.