3 ms·

As someone who's currently taking a break from school and doubting the value of it, I keep seeing these articles and thinking "Sweet! Maybe I'm right, if $publi

As someone who's currently taking a break from school and doubting the value of it, I keep seeing these articles and thinking "Sweet! Maybe I'm right, if $publication is saying it!" But then I read the article, and it's always some sob story about average folks who went to college in a liberal arts field while making absolutely no attempts at establishing an independent career in the field or working outside of class on their trade. Then they get out, and they're a convenience store clerk or something. They end up having the opposite effect on me, rather than confirming my biases.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Why don't you focus on education, instead of schooling? Pick the things you need to learn to reach the goals you want. Go learn those things. Repeat and rinse. That may or may not mean formal schooling. It could mean mentoring, hands-on work, lots of book-reading, long seminars. There are lots of ways to learn. Schooling is where they pick those things for you. What I keep getting from these articles is that most major institutions aren't very good at picking those things for you. That the selection of things to pick from are driven more by politics and happytalk than practical results for most of the students participating. There's no feedback between what defines a degree and what the actual perceived value is from those receiving one. If I were you, I might go back, and I might not. That's kinda the point -- you're supposed to take ownership and actually do something. Failure to take ownership of your education is what leads to working at the chicken-plucking factory, not a lack of a degree.
- trjordan 18y ago
  I agree, the primary focus of school should be learning. However, just because somebody is smart and motivated does not mean they'll learn on their own. For somebody like the GP, a college education can provide access to a huge number of resources that you simply can't find anywhere else. There are some people for whom the combination of great professors, literary resources, and a focus on learning for 3.5 months at a time will provide a better and more concentrated education than anywhere else. Outside of college, you have to spend at least some of your energy on acquiring those opportunites, necessarily making it less effective. That said, I don't think that college is this way for everybody. If you're disengaged in classes and primarily linked in to the social scene, then the value you get out of college is less clear. A degree is socially necessary for some jobs, so it's not entirely wasted time, but the price is steep. Point being, college is like everything else: you get out what you put in. I wouldn't trade my college experience for anything (especially that $160k). Nothing is a panacea.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    just because somebody is smart and motivated does not mean they'll learn on their own How would you demonstrate being smart and motivated without learning on your own? I mean, when I say "hey look at that smart and motivated person!" I'm saying that they're demonstrating learning new things to reach goals -- that they are motivated. Motivation doesn't exist without some kind of action to show for it. I work with people who have varying degrees, from no college at all to PhDs. What I find is that once you've spent that $160K, there is a tendency to feel like it was worth it. This is the same thing that happens during hiking: the goal seems completely pointless until you've spent all day (or multiple days) reaching it. At that point, you wouldn't trade anything in the world for it. I see the same thing from people with military experience, and I imagine the same thing happens for people who work in the Peace Corps. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you want and having somebody else pick it for you, aka schooling. But in that case, there should still be foundational goals: ability to survive in the modern economy comes at the top of the list. Any formal schooling that doesn't meet those needs fails, in my opinion (tying this back to the topic of the article)
    - trjordan 18y ago
      First point: consider that if the only people that are smart and motivated have something to show for it, then there are vastly fewer smart, motivated poor people than there are in the middle and upper classes. Intelligence and motivation may be necessary to learning, but they are certainly not sufficent. It's hard to say objectively whether anything is worth it. However, I don't think that hiking and paying for school are that similar - with hiking, you put the work in up front, and with school, you receive the diploma (and ostensibly the benefits of 4 years of learning) before you even have to start paying back your student loans. That said, doesn't it say something if all those who have done it say it's valuable? In any case, I guess the fundamental issue that I see is the relationship between learning and applicable skills. Picking up skills is certainly learning, but learing is not always economically valuable. Schools do not exist to create wealth in their students - they exist to pass on knowledge. If schools are not passing on real-world skills, they are not intrinsically failing, nor is the real world somehow broken. I value learing for its own sake and am actually willing to forgo some matarial comfort for it. I suppose it all depends on your definitions of success. I will admit that if people are going to school with no clear path and no motivation, and expecting to come out on the other side more employable, that's a problem. But again, it's a problem of expectations, not institutional reality.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Why don't you focus on education, instead of schooling? Pick the things you need to learn to reach the goals you want. Go learn those things. Repeat and rinse. That may or may not mean formal schooling. It could mean mentoring, hands-on work, lots of book-reading, long seminars. There are lots of ways to learn. Schooling is where they pick those things for you. What I keep getting from these articles is that most major institutions aren't very good at picking those things for you. That the selection of things to pick from are driven more by politics and happytalk than practical results for most of the students participating. There's no feedback between what defines a degree and what the actual perceived value is from those receiving one. If I were you, I might go back, and I might not. That's kinda the point -- you're supposed to take ownership and actually do something. Failure to take ownership of your education is what leads to working at the chicken-plucking factory, not a lack of a degree.

trjordan 18y ago
I agree, the primary focus of school should be learning. However, just because somebody is smart and motivated does not mean they'll learn on their own. For somebody like the GP, a college education can provide access to a huge number of resources that you simply can't find anywhere else. There are some people for whom the combination of great professors, literary resources, and a focus on learning for 3.5 months at a time will provide a better and more concentrated education than anywhere else. Outside of college, you have to spend at least some of your energy on acquiring those opportunites, necessarily making it less effective. That said, I don't think that college is this way for everybody. If you're disengaged in classes and primarily linked in to the social scene, then the value you get out of college is less clear. A degree is socially necessary for some jobs, so it's not entirely wasted time, but the price is steep. Point being, college is like everything else: you get out what you put in. I wouldn't trade my college experience for anything (especially that $160k). Nothing is a panacea.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  just because somebody is smart and motivated does not mean they'll learn on their own How would you demonstrate being smart and motivated without learning on your own? I mean, when I say "hey look at that smart and motivated person!" I'm saying that they're demonstrating learning new things to reach goals -- that they are motivated. Motivation doesn't exist without some kind of action to show for it. I work with people who have varying degrees, from no college at all to PhDs. What I find is that once you've spent that $160K, there is a tendency to feel like it was worth it. This is the same thing that happens during hiking: the goal seems completely pointless until you've spent all day (or multiple days) reaching it. At that point, you wouldn't trade anything in the world for it. I see the same thing from people with military experience, and I imagine the same thing happens for people who work in the Peace Corps. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you want and having somebody else pick it for you, aka schooling. But in that case, there should still be foundational goals: ability to survive in the modern economy comes at the top of the list. Any formal schooling that doesn't meet those needs fails, in my opinion (tying this back to the topic of the article)
  - trjordan 18y ago
    First point: consider that if the only people that are smart and motivated have something to show for it, then there are vastly fewer smart, motivated poor people than there are in the middle and upper classes. Intelligence and motivation may be necessary to learning, but they are certainly not sufficent. It's hard to say objectively whether anything is worth it. However, I don't think that hiking and paying for school are that similar - with hiking, you put the work in up front, and with school, you receive the diploma (and ostensibly the benefits of 4 years of learning) before you even have to start paying back your student loans. That said, doesn't it say something if all those who have done it say it's valuable? In any case, I guess the fundamental issue that I see is the relationship between learning and applicable skills. Picking up skills is certainly learning, but learing is not always economically valuable. Schools do not exist to create wealth in their students - they exist to pass on knowledge. If schools are not passing on real-world skills, they are not intrinsically failing, nor is the real world somehow broken. I value learing for its own sake and am actually willing to forgo some matarial comfort for it. I suppose it all depends on your definitions of success. I will admit that if people are going to school with no clear path and no motivation, and expecting to come out on the other side more employable, that's a problem. But again, it's a problem of expectations, not institutional reality.