5 ms·
> Most people are no better off 10-years down the line for having learned about what native Americans used to live in Virginia or what covalent bonds are. That
by JackFr 11y ago
> Most people are no better off 10-years down the line for having learned about what native Americans used to live in Virginia or what covalent bonds are.
That all depends on how you measure better off.
Knowledge, understanding, wisdom are goods unto themselves. No doubt, we need to eat, but I'd rather know Latin, Norse mythology, Anselm's ontological proof, the Platonic solids, and the major players in the Glorious Revolution than not. And I'm better off for simply knowing them.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- saint_fiasco 11y ago>Knowledge, understanding, wisdom You can get the first two for free on a library. You are making a mistake when you compare the knowledge, understanding and wisdom you would get in College against nothing and then decide that College is better than nothing. You should compare it against all the other things people could be doing with that time and money. The opportunity cost.
- JackFr 11y ago> The opportunity cost. With respect to the original article, yes absolutely. I was responding to the parent comment who described people 'no better off' for knowing versus not knowing.
- saint_fiasco 11y agoI interpreted it not as 'knowing versus not knowing' but as 'knowing about Native Americans and covalent bonds' versus 'knowing whatever people would end up knowing if they didn't go to College'. Maybe they will acquire work experience, life experience, pragmatical knowledge about how real world works, that kind of thing. Why is knowledge about covalent bonds intrinsically more important than that?
- kamaal 11y ago>>I'd rather know Latin, Norse mythology, Anselm's ontological proof, the Platonic solids, and the major players in the Glorious Revolution than not. Sure. But expecting some body to pay you just because you know all of that is tad bit too much to ask. The right question to ask here is after all that, how employable are you?
- emodendroket 11y agoWhy is that "the right question?" Why can't you say just the same thing about, say, teaching people to read? Fifth-grade literacy is probably enough to do many jobs, so maybe we should toss out high school too.
- kamaal 11y ago>>Why is that "the right question?" Because you need skills to be employed. The ridiculousness of the situation is such a plumber is probably spending their time more valuably than say who studied Norse Mythology. Note I'm talking more in economic terms only. Sure the person who studied Norse Mythology knows more than a plumber, but you need a plumber more often than you need some one who knows Norse Mythology. >>Why can't you say just the same thing about, say, teaching people to read? That sets the basic platform for other stuff. You build on top of it. >>Fifth-grade literacy is probably enough to do many jobs, so maybe we should toss out high school too. If I was spending $X00,000 on a degree and expect a job in return which some one with fifth-grade literacy can do. I'd be seriously worried about my choices and decision making skills in life.
- emodendroket 11y agoIt's less than self-evident that the main purpose of education is or should be providing training to do jobs at taxpayer or personal expense.
- kamaal 11y agoIf you are not doing a degree to get a job, why complain that you don't get paid enough for that degree?