The Irony of Higher Education

wow! With all of the intelligent things...

you all have said here, it will be very hard for me to top you all not that is in any way my purpose. The problem and as you said, irony of it, is that there are only so many jobs and so many people that it makes for alot of competition. Why is company A going to have to pay person A and keep person A, when they can hire person, B-Z and pay them less. In addition, college keeps you quite conviently off the job for 4 years. But its not only college, school from elementary to the 4th year of college keeps you off the job market for about 21 years, wasting enough of your time for the previous generation to finish their career or in fact maybe work an entire career.

And why can't you become a professional thinker or an author with much ease? People these days don't give one crap about literature and important thoughts. They want to be hooked in to the tv set like mindless drones. The intelligent people on sciforums are a very rare, rare minority of intellectuals and thinkers. Why is it so hard to be what you want to be? Because society in how it is set up has no need for you. They say that necessity is the mother of invention, well they don't go far enough, neccessity is the rule of the world. The world only needs so many intellectuals because intellectualism is a dying art and people don't care about real ideas? Do you really think that George Bush and Bill Clinton have read Plato? Probably not. And if they have do you think they have understood Plato? Definitely not, or they would not do what they do or people would not hire them to do what they do. In Politics these days you have to be close to all but totally mindless and really just make sure you deliver to the "hands of partisanship". It is actually the worst form of greed there is.

But back to education, it is failing because most teachers are merely an hour ahead of their students. They don't know how to accumulate knowledge into an ordered system that can be properly be termed a philosophy and this goes with all disciplines and not those of only the most liberal bent.
 
Last edited:
Xevious:

When I say a good college teaches you how to think rather than what to think, I mean that, as well as giving students information on various subjects, one would hope that a college would, at the same time, teach its students how to critically evaluate arguments for an against a particular view. Students need to learn what makes a defensible argument, as well as where and how they can find information on different subjects from different points of view. A college education should teach students to suspend judgement on an issue until they have looked at the issue from all sides.

If a student is presented with only one point of view on an issue, when clearly other points of view exists, the teacher is failing in his or her task.

I recognise that not all teachers are good teachers. But you can't say that the whole concept of a college education is a bad idea just because you had a few bad teachers.
 
Re: wow! With all of the intelligent things...

And why can't you become a professional thinker or an author with much ease?
Click to expand...

Basically because you have to get up to speed on what has been thought before by others - 'if I see further than other men....'

People these days don't give one crap about literature and important thoughts.
Click to expand...

Oh, I can't accept that ! There are lots of 'couch potatoes' but there are lots of people interested in literature, etc. You may have to move in different circles though.

Do you really think that George Bush and Bill Clinton have read Plato? Probably not.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if Bush had - I would be surprised if Clinton hadn't.

Don't give up just yet.

Ron.
 
Personally...

I don't give up at any good things I do in my life, I just know how to mix things up so I can survive.

If you don't think that the world is moving in the direction I have described you are gravely mistaken, even "intellectuals" are giving up on being "intellectuals". The world on a whole is moving more and more towards mindless consumption and consumerism, maybe you just refuse to see it, but that of course doesn't necessarily mean there aren't pockets of resistance, its just the majority are in a drunken stupor.

And as to the Bush and Clinton thing I said. I think it is quite customary to see Bush as stupid or it is the thing to do to say Bush is stupid, but this thing with Clinton baffles me. Maybe it is just because he came before Bush and he is the person people think of and like to compare Bush to. I was fighting with my family and my father had the urge to put what I was saying down but saying Bill Clinton is smarter than anyone here, he was a Rhode scholar. I guess when people want to come up with who's smart they immediately come up with their president, after all he is the one in charge. Forget about Einstein or Bill Gates? Bill Clinton? No doubt he is smart and probably has read Plato, but he still to a degree strikes me as a bit of a rube. And George Bush although you can belittle him as an idiot and you might even to a certain degree be right, he probably is smarter than alot of people give him credit for. As for the "them not understanding Plato" thing, I could be wrong, I was rather passionate when I was saying those things, still I could be right.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by James R
A college education should teach students to suspend judgement on an issue until they have looked at the issue from all sides.
Click to expand...

I think college has done this very well, maybe not perfectly, but very well. Look at all the different organizations and interest groups on a college campus. You have people for gays/lesbians, war/antiwar, nudists, etc etc. People don't go about bashing or thinking lowly of these people who are in these groups. By even being on a campus people are exposed to all sides of an argument. If college is not teaching students to suspend judgement until both sides are heard the students themselves sure are. The only thing I can think of where this fails is a composition class. I took a class my freshman year in college and we had to write a paper about who knows what (it's been so long). Anyways, according to all my high school teachings this paper should have made a decent grade but I got a low grade because it did not fit the mold that the professor intended. I say that is being a little too subjective and from that example I can see how alot of people look at college as being a cloning facility for future development.
 
Thats the problem with some degrees so many people get them that them thats there is just not a market for them. A bachelors degree just isn't worth as much as it use to be. So now in order to make the money you have to go to grad school. When I graduate with a degree in Biochem does it mean I'm going to be garanteed a job, not really. And if I ever want to be more than a lab rat I'll be stuck at grad school for a few more greulling years but thats the way it works the more education you have the more marketable you become and the more money you can make.

Just because you get a degree anyways doesn't mean your going to like what your doing anyways. I had a friend who went through two years of computer classes, got a job in that feild decided he hated and now hes becoming a electrian. And in reality you'll always need an electrian, I wouldn't count on the fact that we will always need somebody for computers.
 
When I say a good college teaches you how to think rather than what to think, I mean that, as well as giving students information on various subjects, one would hope that a college would, at the same time, teach its students how to critically evaluate arguments for an against a particular view. Students need to learn what makes a defensible argument, as well as where and how they can find information on different subjects from different points of view. A college education should teach students to suspend judgement on an issue until they have looked at the issue from all sides.
Click to expand...

That is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, if an instructor controls what information is taught or allowed in his class, he has absolute control over what point of view his student arrives at. My political science classes were exactly that way.

Perhaps, College Instructors assume that the students adhere to Aristotle's principal, for he said "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it," without actually teaching it. When you are in class, the majority of students have the additudes they have in High School... which is basically "I need to know A, B, C, and D to pass that test next week." Basically, they will regurgitate the ideas that the instructor gives them without questioning, because this approach ensures them the best chance at a relatively high score on the test.
 
I am a grad student. I love my chosen field of study, and am taking classes that were not available to me as an undergrad candidate. Plus, no more general ed!
However, Ive always learned quickly and enthusiastically when my mind flows in directions that stimulate my curiosity. This is quickly destroyed by the professors as they tell you to "have this done by next class" or "read this and that” in enormous quantities".
This style of "education" turns your learning experience into a job, and like most jobs it becomes boring (even with subjects you are passionate about).
At my university, I was taught problem solving. Is that not the real goal of education? to teach you how to solve problems?
I don’t belive you can teach anyone “how to think”. What does that mean anyway?
You have to be able to think before you can learn, otherwise, how would any thoughts ever get in? Thinking is a physiological constant. Learning takes inspiration and the desire to be better than who you are. My definition of a stupid person is one who has stopped learning by choice or ridicules others trying to improve. A person can be quite mentally handicapped and still have a desire to learn. This in my book makes that person intelligent. And a wise person once said: “Everyone you meet in life is your teacher”, from infants to the older in years, even animals!
My short list of things that kill intelligence:
• Boredom
• Worrying
• Cynicism
• Hate
• Over-eating and too much sugar
Please add to this list because I might be missing something. Better yet, start a new thread.
 
Im sorry, just one more thing:
Imagine if the Wright Brothers didn't do what they did because there "isn't a market for it?"!
How about Guttenburg? Edison? George C Washington?
Most of these people CREATED the market. Some educated, some not.
Sc*ew the marketers
 
Get a degree in law, tax, finance or bussiness management, that's where the money is....

That is, if your heart beats for the sound of KA-TSJING!!!
 
Nomad soul:
here are the points that you made that I think you should explore if not only for yourself because they may lead to further valuable insights:

"However, Ive always learned quickly and enthusiastically when my mind flows in directions that stimulate my curiosity. This is quickly destroyed by the professors as they tell you to "have this done by next class" or "read this and that” in enormous quantities.

This style of "education" turns your learning experience into a job, and like most jobs it becomes boring (even with subjects you are passionate about)."

"My definition of a stupid person is one who has stopped learning by choice or ridicules others trying to improve."

"Imagine if the Wright Brothers didn't do what they did because there "isn't a market for it?"!
How about Guttenburg? Edison? George C Washington?
Most of these people CREATED the market. Some educated, some not.
Sc*ew the marketers"

Great points!
 
Last edited:
If you want to make money, learn a trade.

If you want to learn and do something that you love, go to university.

Choose one.
 
the great skeptical society.....

John Gardner, founder of Common Cause, creator of Medicare and other Great Society programs, described as the citizen of his era; himself described in his 1963 book "Self-Renewal" the paradox: innovation and scientific inquiry require at least a modest level of affluence, yet the comfort of affluence often undermines a commitment to innovate. Mr. Gardner observed that "If affluent individuals (or an affluent society) commit themselves unreservedly to the conservation of their resources, affluence can be a deadening force." On the other hand, he noted, "Individuals and societies living close to the margin of survival often cannot afford to take the chances required by innovative action." In other words, an affluent society which can afford science turns skeptical towards science. While a society living on the margin of existence can not afford science. The percentage of GDP spent by the affluent USA on science has been in a steady decline for many years now....
whiterobe.....
 
Most places of higher education do not really do what they lead you to believe they do. When you come out with your paper in hand, you are not qualified to do much in the work place. Sorry but that is the facts.

Most business would rather not waste any time in teaching you how to do the job. They would rather have someone that they can quickly bring up to speed and then let them go at the job. (experience requirements)

Some business have no choice in what they will accept as far as experience goes. Heck I have even known some to say that they require folks who know absolutely nothing about the job so that they don't have any bad habits to break.

Much of what the experience requirements are for jobs are not set in stone. It is a way to say you aren't who we are looking for and here is a way we can say you don't fit our needs without giving the excuse for legal liability and court costs.

Schools don't fit business needs either. They do not train you to do a job. No school is up to date, no matter how they would like to present it. All they can give you are the basics. How to research, where to get info, and what a feild is in general. You are nowhere near the cutting edge of industry when you come out of school.

Most businesses will train a select few for their jobs. Those that they think would be worth it. Practices of using part-time workers and not having to meet benefit requirements is shoddy practice by those preditory companies that should be hauled to task for the treatment of their employees.

Schools are preparation institutions but they are not earning your dollars worth. Sad to say, most entry level postitions for employment want the world but do not want to pay for it. It doesn't cost them anything to say, "You must have x amount of education" except for the cost to have the ad printed. Teachers are a prime example of a job that someone has to love to do, because it doesn't pay back what you have laid out in expense to meet the requirements.(education)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for education. But our education directions really need a major overhaul as what used to be adequate no longer cuts the mustard. It takes quite a while for a young person, just out of school to recoup the cost of that education and begin to use that education for something besides a wall decoration.
 
Ironically, they started training more PhD students in the biological sciences here in Finland with the thought that the biotech sector would take off and they would need the skill and expertise of a new generation of PhD students.

Unfortunately the Biotech sector is not really growing that much as expected, and these companies rather hire a student that finished her/his Masters, and train them themselves. It is a blank sheet. They don't see PhD students as very suited for their line of business at all. Too many bad habits. Not the skills they need.

So this would fit nicely with your train of thoughts Wet1.
 
material world....

I live in a material world and I work to earn a livlihood. I put in the extra effort, and rationalize that its an investment in my livlihood, which provides a nice home and material security for the ones closest to me, my family. I am a solitary soul, but, I am also a citizen of a community and a member of the human race.... There have been changes in the corporate world in my lifetime. Profits have always been important, but now greed has been institutionalized.... The 'beancounters', the ministers of high finance, now rule in business and in government. Consider Enron, WorldCom, etc., and so forth.... Like sheep, we have been led astray.... Consider the Columbia tragedy.... ?The NASA beancounters told us that there was no contingency for the astronauts, because they didn't have the budget and the solution was too difficult..... I say, if we assume failure, how likely is it that we will develop new ways to improve the odds in the future. We must always take the chance and fight for survival, a "can do" attitude is worth more in the business world than a "sheepskin".
The educational system can at least be an ally in our determination of exactly who is minding the store.....
 
The bottom line is that having a college education gives you a huge advantage over people who don't. According the U.S. Census Bureau the unemployment rate for people without a high school degree is 9.2%. Unemployment for people with a high school degree but no college degree is 5.5%. The unemployment rate for people with a college degree is 3.0%. Additionally, unemployed people with college degrees find jobs in less time on average than those without.

Something else to think about: a person with a college degree will earn on average 62% more than a person without a college degree, and a person with an advanced degree will earn on average 98% more than a person without a college degree.

In addition to all that, you come out knowing a hell of a lot more about your chosen field than when you went in. As for those of you who are complaining that colleges brainwash people or turn them into robots…sorry, but it sounds like you went to a crappy college.

Now…what's the problem with college again?
 
It's just a stamp of approval, Nasor. The question was if it really preparted you for career. It doesn't really. In truth, people get jobs because they have college degrees primarily because the people hiring them have degrees and it makes the more comfortable to work with "educated" people.

It is entirely possible (and DOES happen) that a person working a job has a merely competent work performance, but because of his college degree earns a significant amount of money. On the other hand, a person without a degree in the same job which routinely outperforms the first guy is paid less, because he lacks a degree. Put in simpler terms, the college degree is used as a justification to pay a larger salary to a less competant worker, while a less "qualified" employee is probably doing more. The end result is that one employee is overcompensated for his work, the other less so.

You might shrug and say "who cares" but this translates to a discriminatory practice between the "educated" and the layman, and only serves to hurt the image of College and education as a whole by portraying it as little more than a social status, or shall I say it... a caste in society.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
It's just a stamp of approval, Nasor. The question was if it really preparted you for career. It doesn't really. In truth, people get jobs because they have college degrees primarily because the people hiring them have degrees and it makes the more comfortable to work with "educated" people.
Click to expand...
Maybe I've just spent too much time living in the science world, but the idea that a person isn't more qualified because of a degree seems laughable.

Even outside science and technology fields, it makes a lot of sense to prefer employees with degrees. A degree shows that you are intelligent and hard working enough to graduate from college; something that a great many people aren't. Although college probably won't prepare you for the specifics of your day-to-day job, it guarantees that you have an ability to learn, decent writing skills, and are committed enough in your field to have spent 4+ years studying it.

Of course it's possible for someone to be intelligent and hardworking without having gone to college, but why would an employer want to take a chance?
 
Even outside science and technology fields, it makes a lot of sense to prefer employees with degrees. A degree shows that you are intelligent and hard working enough to graduate from college; something that a great many people aren't. Although college probably won't prepare you for the specifics of your day-to-day job, it guarantees that you have an ability to learn, decent writing skills, and are committed enough in your field to have spent 4+ years studying it.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you might be interested to know that most people with degrees work in fields which have nothing to do with their education, and unfortunetly many of the previous posts in this threat covered many of the pointes you made as well. All College does it gage how well you can take tests and regurgitate material to be forgotten 20 mintues after the exam.

BTW - Thank you for proving my point that degrees function as a caste system in which one is separated out from the percived layman. Instead of being born with patents of nobility, you buy them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top