Schools What is the purpose of a college education?

[klimatos]

In reading through a number of academically-oriented threads, I am struck by the almost overwhelming idea that the purpose of a college education is to provide you with a good job.

Whatever happened to the idea that the purpose of an education was to make you a better person, or (in Thomas Jefferson's view) a better citizen. You undertook an education because you thirsted for knowledge, you wanted to experience a wider range of ideas and meet a broader range of people. You wanted to LEARN! And not just because you could possibly use that knowledge to make a living, but simply because you wanted to know!

I really feel sorry for those people who are so focused on finding a good job that they pass over the sheer joy of learning.

I spent some forty years in academia. I could have made much more money at something else (and eventually did). I sometimes think that my freshman year, when I was carrying 23 semester hours, working 39 hours a week at an outside job, and trying to live on the Korean G.I. Bill was the most all-around satisfying year of my life (except for the year I married my wife, of course).

 

[Char. Limit]

Whatever happened? The real world happened. The pressure to have more money happened. The judging of your worth by your net worth happened.

Pretty simple.

 

[Pengwuino]

When I look around and see people losing their houses, going unemployed for 2 years straight, health care costs rising, tuition costs rising, etc etc, I sure as hell am not going to ignore the financial motivation of taking myself off the job market for 10+ years (depending on whether you get a phd).

Plus, some people simply can't enjoy learning a subject and love education to the extent that they could live a life of poverty their entire life and still be happy if they're doing whatever they're doing. The problem most people with your mindset seem to have is they don't realize it's not a black and white scale where you either devote every waking second to your subject with 0 other interests or you should stay the hell out of the field and work as a technician at a factory.

 

[CheckMate]

Depends. Jobs? Pursuing a dream ? Or just to show others that you've got a university degree and they don't ?

It also depends what kind of degree it is. There some useless degrees nowadays like Liberal Arts and even Business. Business should be about practice not theory. Everyone who succeeded in the Business world (making 1M+ and owns a company) did not have a Business degree.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lately the purpose of an education seems to be to funnel money into the education industry.

 

[206PiruBlood]

At times I think much of the money spent on my education wasn't worthwhile particularly because I enjoy learning; I teach myself everything I want to learn which is far more than a college education requires of me. The only thing my school provides that I can't find between physicsforums/internet and the library is access to the labs and research opportunities.

 

[lisab]

When I look around and see people losing their houses, going unemployed for 2 years straight, health care costs rising, tuition costs rising, etc etc, I sure as hell am not going to ignore the financial motivation of taking myself off the job market for 10+ years (depending on whether you get a phd).

I must admit that the last few years have really changed my attitude about college. I know too many smart people who are underemployed because there seems to be no place for them in industry.

I used to encourage young people to pursue science, just because it's so freaking cool.

But now I say, why don't you consider something else, particularly engineering? Because I figure if they are one of those dedicated souls who are relentlessly driven by their passion for science, then what I say is irrelevant. And if they aren't, well...then they should consider engineering.

 

[Char. Limit]

There is no purpose. It's all ********. Most professors suck and you can teahc yourself everything you want to know.

With that attitude it's no wonder you failed grad school.

 

[Physics_UG]

With that attitude it's no wonder you failed grad school.

I didn't fail out. I dropped out.

 

[Char. Limit]

I didn't fail out. I dropped out.

Okay. With that kind of attitude it's no wonder you dropped out of grad school. Three times.

 

[Physics_UG]

also, I don't think grad school is for losers. I think it's a very noble pursuit.

 

[rootX]

A drunk person's problems from one thread ought not to be brought into another thread

That reminds of married couples fight, how one brings things happened 5 years ago .

 

[Evo]

He's got 24 hours to get sober and then read the posts he made when he returns.

 

[Willowz]

Should have let him rant before he did something more stupid.

 

[russ_watters]

I really feel sorry for those people who are so focused on finding a good job that they pass over the sheer joy of learning.

Few people are wealthy enough that they can do that.

I spent some forty years in academia. I could have made much more money at something else (and eventually did).

Making a career of academia is nowhere close to the same thing as just going to college for love of learning/to better yourself. In fact, it is almost exactly the thing you are complaining about! You went to college to prepare yourself for your career!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whatever happened to the idea that the purpose of an education was to make you a better person, or (in Thomas Jefferson's view) a better citizen. You undertook an education because you thirsted for knowledge, you wanted to experience a wider range of ideas and meet a broader range of people. You wanted to LEARN! And not just because you could possibly use that knowledge to make a living, but simply because you wanted to know!

I really feel sorry for those people who are so focused on finding a good job that they pass over the sheer joy of learning.

I spent some forty years in academia. I could have made much more money at something else (and eventually did). I sometimes think that my freshman year, when I was carrying 23 semester hours, working 39 hours a week at an outside job, and trying to live on the Korean G.I. Bill was the most all-around satisfying year of my life (except for the year I married my wife, of course).

I went back to school in my late twenties. In order to do so, I had to walk away from a sucessful career and put everything on the line. Just the lost income probably accounts for over $250K. Then, to make things worse, we decided to get out of Los Angeles at the end of my sophomore year, and moved to the backwoods of Oregon. At that time I seriously considered changing from physics to EE as a practical matter, but in the end, couldn't bring myself to do it. My heart was in physics so I stuck with it. So, from a financial pov, I did all the wrong things. And it has been an incredibly tough road. But now I make great money working from my converted barn, in my pasture, on my 5+ acre farm, as a private consultant and contractor, mostly via the internet, doing what I used to do for fun. I get paid to play in my barn. Who woulda thunk??

I think people underestimate the cost of doing a job you hate, or at least, one that you don't love. I recognized that trap and ran like the wind. Honestly, I have no idea how I managed to pull this off, but I attribute it to following my heart and doing what I love.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm only just now starting to feel like I'm getting an education, and it's not all warm and fuzzies. it's also not something I'm sure i could have gotten in college, despite getting the "university" experience and all of those humanities electives.

 

[wuliheron]

In reading through a number of academically-oriented threads, I am struck by the almost overwhelming idea that the purpose of a college education is to provide you with a good job.

Whatever happened to the idea that the purpose of an education was to make you a better person, or (in Thomas Jefferson's view) a better citizen.

Famous words from a slave owner who considered blacks an inferior race and insisted we should become a nation of gentleman farmers. It was never much more then romantic idealism and if you really want to become a better person there are certainly easier and cheaper way of achieving the goal these days.

 

[Char. Limit]

Famous words from a slave owner who considered blacks an inferior race and insisted we should become a nation of gentleman farmers. It was never much more then romantic idealism and if you really want to become a better person there are certainly easier and cheaper way of achieving the goal these days.

Really? All the reasoned, rational arguments available and your very first choice was to play the race card?

 

[klimatos]

Few people are wealthy enough that they can do that. Making a career of academia is nowhere close to the same thing as just going to college for love of learning/to better yourself. In fact, it is almost exactly the thing you are complaining about! You went to college to prepare yourself for your career!

No, Russ, I can honestly say that when I went to college I had no idea of pursuing a career. I simply wanted to learn. I changed my major three times. And I was not rich--that's why I had to work 39 hours a week at an outside job. And my first university teaching job was in a field in which I had taken exactly one introductory course! Hardly a career preparation!

Moreover, those forty years were not continuous. I spent five years as a U. S. intelligence officer in the Middle East, and five years as a Director of Planning for a three-county planning agency. At no time when I was a student did I have either of those activities in mind as a possible future occupation.

 

[wukunlin]

For me it is all interrelated:

There is something I love to learn everything about it => I want to use this something to help myself make enough money to live

 

[russ_watters]

No, Russ, I can honestly say that when I went to college I had no idea of pursuing a career.

That doesn't actually change things. You may not have done it on purpose, but you did do what prepared you for your career.

I changed my major three times.

So you got lucky in that eventually you fell into what became your career. Doesn't change the fact that in college you learned what prepared you for your career.

And I was not rich...

You didn't have to be since when you were in college you learned what prepared you for your career.

The way I worded that initially isn't the most useful: you don't need to be rich to go to college, you just need to be rich to afford what comes after college if you didn't prepare yourself for a career while there. There are a lot of debt-laden waiters and waitresses out there.

Lets not use you as an example here: Imagine a hypothetical person who goes to college for love of learning art history and comes away with an art history degree and $80,000 in debt. Now what?

 

[GregJ]

Imagine a hypothetical person who goes to college for love of learning art history and comes away with an art history degree and $80,000 in debt. Now what?

This. I have been around the globe and it is the same story everywhere you go. You can no longer just study for pure interest or love of a subject, there has to be some financial motivation after the degree or you'll end up stuck in a menial job trying to pay back a massive debt.

 

[klimatos]

Imagine a hypothetical person who goes to college for love of learning art history and comes away with an art history degree and $80,000 in debt. Now what?

I would say that that person was extremely irresponsible and selfish in running up a debt that they had no reasonable expectation of paying off. Just because you want to do something does not give you the right to do that something. Where is that person's sense of honor?

 

[russ_watters]

I would say that that person was extremely irresponsible and selfish in running up a debt that they had no reasonable expectation of paying off. Just because you want to do something does not give you the right to do that something. Where is that person's sense of honor?

Fair enough - so the "sheer joy of learning" isn't enough in that case. Now what if their parents paid for college so they came away with no debt? Is it ok then?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fair enough - so the "sheer joy of learning" isn't enough in that case. Now what if their parents paid for college so they came away with no debt? Is it ok then?

Is it your position that for a person who is financially independent, an education is wasted?

 

[russ_watters]

Is it your position that for a person who is financially independent, an education is wasted?

Absolutely not.

 

[wuliheron]

Really? All the reasoned, rational arguments available and your very first choice was to play the race card?

So its OK to drop the names of famous people like Thomas Jefferson to support an argument, but not to play the race card.

Which is exactly why I chose to do so to highlight the fact that this is merely romantic idealism with little basis in fact. In Jefferson's day things like Latin were routine requirements despite having often little practical application. They were justified as a means of "broadening" the mind when in fact they were more often used to promote distinctions between the upper and lower classes. Notably, the constitution Jefferson wrote only empowered white land owning males to vote.

 

[Containment]

Actually not to sidetrack this but you guys got me thinking about one reason why college is so expensive and why it is much harder to just take a course you enjoy but won't make you back what you payed for the classes. I do however disagree that for the most part getting an education has ever really been about anything other then the bread and butter. I mean just look at how frowned upon a education in philosophy is in the usa.

 

[klimatos]

So you got lucky in that eventually you fell into what became your career. Doesn't change the fact that in college you learned what prepared you for your career. You didn't have to be since when you were in college you learned what prepared you for your career.

Actually, Russ, I have had six separate and distinct careers in my life. My college education only prepared me for two of those--university teaching and planning. For three of these careers, I felt that I had no real "preparation" at all--except for living a varied life. These three were intelligence officer in the Middle East, professional writer, and general manager of a small manufacturing firm. The Navy taught me how to be an Electronics Technician.

I would like to reiterate that my purpose in going to college was not to prepare myself for a career. As an undergraduate, I would have scoffed at the idea of becoming a professor. It just turned out that way. It was happenstance, not intent. I went to college to learn.

 

[klimatos]

Fair enough - so the "sheer joy of learning" isn't enough in that case. Now what if their parents paid for college so they came away with no debt? Is it ok then?

Absolutely so. The student gets four years of fulfillment, the parents get four years of seeing their child content, society gets another person knowledgeable in the fine arts, the university gets four years of tuition and (perhaps) a future alumnus of note, and the community gets four years of purchases of goods and services. Who loses?

When I taught at Duke (back in the Neanderthal era), it was common for a certain portion of the female undergraduates to come to school for the primary purpose of acquiring a husband of equal or greater social status. Although less common now, it is certainly not unknown. Do you think this was and is a valid reason?

 

[klimatos]

1) In Jefferson's day things like Latin were routine requirements despite having often little practical application.

2)They were justified as a means of "broadening" the mind when in fact they were more often used to promote distinctions between the upper and lower classes.

3) Notably, the constitution Jefferson wrote only empowered white land owning males to vote.

1) Of the many courses I took in high school, the two I found most useful in later life were Latin and Typing.

2) The distinctions between the upper and lower classes in Revolutionary America were very real distinctions. Our founding fathers had no intention of letting the "common man" have any significant say in running the country. From what I have read as to the education and knowledge of the "common man" at that time, I believe that this attitude was well justified.

3) Jefferson did not write the Constitution, nor did he play any role in the committee that did. He was out of the country when the Constitution was written.

 

[Evo]

Jobs are not as easy to come by now. When I was younger, you could become employed with only a high school education and work your way up the ladder, and if you wanted to go into management, then you usually took college courses (usually reimbursed by your company, as long as it went toward your company goal). There was virtually no limit to how high you could go.

Now days, most companies are so inundated with applicants that unless you have at least a BS in which ever field they require, they won't even read your resume. And it's usually for a beginners position. A lot of companies ask you to upload your resume and check back to see if it's accepted. You never get a chance to even speak to anyone by phone or e-mail until it's accepted.

So, one must understand that what worked 30 years ago, doesn't work today.

Today, I'd say the overwhelming purpose of paying for a college education is to gain employment in a specific field. If you look at University websites, you will see that counseling for careers they can prepare you for is a large part of what they do.

Example http://www.princeton.edu/career/

Lists of colleges and universites career centers.

http://www.google.com/search?source...LL_enUS339US339&q=university+careers+services

 

[BobG]

When I taught at Duke (back in the Neanderthal era), it was common for a certain portion of the female undergraduates to come to school for the primary purpose of acquiring a husband of equal or greater social status. Although less common now, it is certainly not unknown. Do you think this was and is a valid reason?

Its a valid reason, but slightly narrow sighted. A cheaper plan would be to hang around at the laundromats near campus, helping inept male students living on their own for the first time handle the complicated process of separating whites from colors, selecting fabric softeners, etc.

This would be particularly effective if they had large bosoms and could catch Doritos in their mouth.

 

[klimatos]

I do however disagree that for the most part getting an education has ever really been about anything other then the bread and butter. I mean just look at how frowned upon a education in philosophy is in the usa.

I don't think that this is historically true. Traditionally, a college education was the (almost) exclusive province of the upper classes. Children of the middle and lower classes rarely ever went to college. The children of the upper classes went to acquire the education that would fit them for their expected roles in the leisure class. They did not need to learn a trade.

Young gentlemen expected to inherit wealth or--at worst--take over their father's positions as administrators of businesses. Young ladies expected to inherit wealth or to marry it.

The first major change came about with the development of "normal schools" to train public school teachers. These gradually metamorphosed into "teacher's colleges". Their clientele was almost exclusively the children of the middle classes.

The second major change came about with the WWII G. I. Bill. All of a sudden, the children of middle and lower class families descended on unprepared colleges and universities in unprecedented droves.

It was only then that a college degree became necessary to enjoy a middle-class income.

Now, simple possession of the degree is no longer sufficient. You need to possesses marketable skills as well.

 

[BobG]

I don't think that this is historically true. Traditionally, a college education was the (almost) exclusive province of the upper classes. Children of the middle and lower classes rarely ever went to college. The children of the upper classes went to acquire the education that would fit them for their expected roles in the leisure class. They did not need to learn a trade.

Young gentlemen expected to inherit wealth or--at worst--take over their father's positions as administrators of businesses. Young ladies expected to inherit wealth or to marry it.

The first major change came about with the development of "normal schools" to train public school teachers. These gradually metamorphosed into "teacher's colleges". Their clientele was almost exclusively the children of the middle classes.

The second major change came about with the WWII G. I. Bill. All of a sudden, the children of middle and lower class families descended on unprepared colleges and universities in unprecedented droves.

It was only then that a college degree became necessary to enjoy a middle-class income.

Now, simple possession of the degree is no longer sufficient. You need to possesses marketable skills as well.

This is true when it came to college. However, the first major change was the rise of trade schools, which were specifically targeted towards providing the students with skills that would increase their employability and wages. The extension of that idea to colleges was inevitable, even if it took a while.

The Manhattan Trade School for Girls was one example. It started out to provide girls from poor, first generation immigrant families the skills necessary to acquire jobs that would at least pay better than "prostitute".

“The immediate purpose of the school was to train the youngest and poorest wage-earners to be self-supporting as quickly as possible"

It was a school originally funded by private donations from wealthy families and it was successful enough that it was eventually incorporated into New York City's public school system.

(If you've ever bought a stuffed animal made by Mary Meyer Manufacturing, then you've had some association with the trade school. Mary Meyer was probably the most successful student from the school, partly due to the sewing skills she learned at the school and partly due to the sales and business skills of her husband, Hans Meyer. Seeing as how both were from German immigrant families, and World War II created a lot of anti-German sentiment, naming the company after Mary seemed a better business decision than naming it after Hans. Not only did Mary Meyer graduate from the school; they also hired several of the schools later graduates. Hans and Mary died back in the 90's, but the company is still run by their son and grandson.)

 

[russ_watters]

I would like to reiterate that my purpose in going to college was not to prepare myself for a career. As an undergraduate, I would have scoffed at the idea of becoming a professor. It just turned out that way. It was happenstance, not intent. I went to college to learn.

Well as I said - lucky for you you got it figured out. If you hadn't fallen into something that was useful to you, your life probably would have turned out much worse. And more to the point, what you suggest would lead an awful lot of people on a path to ruin. It is flawed/obsolete thinking.

Absolutely so. The student gets four years of fulfillment, the parents get four years of seeing their child content, society gets another person knowledgeable in the fine arts, the university gets four years of tuition and (perhaps) a future alumnus of note, and the community gets four years of purchases of goods and services. Who loses?

You didn't properly figure the cost of the art history degree. Not only do the parents have to pay for it, the student has to pay for it later in lost income and society likely will have to pay for it in lost tax revenue and increased social spending to prop-up someone who can't make their own living.

My question asked, Now what? The gain in knowledge that the person won't use has to be weighed against the failure to learn knowledge he/she could use. Or to put a finer point on it: this art history major will likely have to go back to school later to learn something marketable in order to make a decent living. So when I said "now what", I meant: Is the gain in knowledge of art history worth the years of financial hardship almost certain to follow it?

hen I taught at Duke (back in the Neanderthal era), it was common for a certain portion of the female undergraduates to come to school for the primary purpose of acquiring a husband of equal or greater social status. Although less common now, it is certainly not unknown. Do you think this was and is a valid reason?

No, I don't, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with your original point. In fact, based on gender/major stats, these girls' choices of major work against that goal as well. In other words, if a girl goes to college to find a husband so she never has to work, she should still take a useful major just in case she fails to find one and actually does have to work.

2) The distinctions between the upper and lower classes in Revolutionary America were very real distinctions. Our founding fathers had no intention of letting the "common man" have any significant say in running the country. From what I have read as to the education and knowledge of the "common man" at that time, I believe that this attitude was well justified.

[separate post] Traditionally, a college education was the (almost) exclusive province of the upper classes. Children of the middle and lower classes rarely ever went to college. The children of the upper classes went to acquire the education that would fit them for their expected roles in the leisure class. They did not need to learn a trade.

Partly in response to Ivan's question to me: my first thought at seeing the OP was "elitism" and the above answer is what I was thinking when it occurred to me. That's what I meant when I said not everyone can afford such thinking.

More to the point, klimatos, your use of the word "traditionally" is just another way of saying 'obsolete thinking'.

 

[klimatos]

1) You didn't properly figure the cost of the art history degree. Not only do the parents have to pay for it, the student has to pay for it later in lost income and society likely will have to pay for it in lost tax revenue and increased social spending to prop-up someone who can't make their own living.

2) More to the point, klimatos, your use of the word "traditionally" is just another way of saying 'obsolete thinking'.

1) Are you suggesting that only "utilitarian" courses of study be permitted? I don't think I want to live in that kind of society.

2) I was using "traditionally" in the traditional sense. I was referring to a time in the past. Surely, Russ, you are not suggesting that everything traditional is obsolete? That strikes me as just sloppy thinking!

 

[Dale]

Lately the purpose of an education seems to be to funnel money into the education industry.

Ouch! Painfully true.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To be educated, up to a degree.

 

[phillipx]

In reading through a number of academically-oriented threads, I am struck by the almost overwhelming idea that the purpose of a college education is to provide you with a good job.

Whatever happened to the idea that the purpose of an education was to make you a better person, or (in Thomas Jefferson's view) a better citizen. You undertook an education because you thirsted for knowledge, you wanted to experience a wider range of ideas and meet a broader range of people. You wanted to LEARN! And not just because you could possibly use that knowledge to make a living, but simply because you wanted to know!

I really feel sorry for those people who are so focused on finding a good job that they pass over the sheer joy of learning.

I spent some forty years in academia. I could have made much more money at something else (and eventually did). I sometimes think that my freshman year, when I was carrying 23 semester hours, working 39 hours a week at an outside job, and trying to live on the Korean G.I. Bill was the most all-around satisfying year of my life (except for the year I married my wife, of course).

I agree. I just recently went back to school, at great financial sacrifice, because I can't imagine living the rest of my life without the joy of learning.

 

[206PiruBlood]

I agree. I just recently went back to school, at great financial sacrifice, because I can't imagine living the rest of my life without the joy of learning.

Can you not experience the joy of learning without the financial burden of returning to school?

I am not really advocating people skip out on college but I feel if we could cultivate the desire and initiative to learn in young people that we could save enormous amounts in education, or at least see far better results. Perhaps I learn more independently than others but I feel the burden ultimately fall to the individual student; If they do the work and challenge themselves, they learn whether paying for it or not. Not to generalize but many of the students I talk to say they wouldn't give the required effort if they didn't feel they had to from being in school.

This of course is all moot so long as a degree radically increases one's chance of landing a job.

 

[Mépris]

I know people who get *very* good grades and can walk into practically any field they want. They're off to study Civil Engineering or Quantity Surveying because rankings tables (don't know which - either way, I don't care about these) and people in the field tell them that's where the money is at. That's something I've been observing for the past 3-4 years. Within the next 5 years, if this sentiment hasn't changed, something bad is going to happen...

The other people who get very good grades are either doing another form of engineering, doing finance or medicine/dentistry.

I do agree that many persons aren't wealthy enough to just go to college and study what they love. Heck, what a bunch of people love has nothing to do with academia. Getting good grades, a degree and an internship in a related field along the way, is usually a relatively secure way of getting a job of some kind. And for a lot of people, that's all that matters. A stable job.

I think people underestimate the cost of doing a job you hate, or at least, one that you don't love. I recognized that trap and ran like the wind. Honestly, I have no idea how I managed to pull this off, but I attribute it to following my heart and doing what I love.

Hats off to you. I know two persons (in my family!) who have done similar things. I'm not entirely convinced they're doing what they love but for one of them, $$$ is what he loves and he does gets him lots of $$$.

The hard part is figuring out what you love. If you don't love anything *that* much, you suddenly find yourself with too much choice. But I guess that can be a good thing.

 

[wuliheron]

To be educated, up to a degree.

My father would argue the purpose of higher education for most people is merely to demonstrate to prospective employers that you can be trained. He obtained an engineering degree, but became a captain in the US Navy. My sister double majored in Mechanical Engineering and English, but became a computer programmer and is now a vice president for a food company. I have countless other relatives and friends some of whom attended ivy league colleges and obtained masters degrees, only to go into completely unrelated fields.

 

[Phrak]

This isn't a button-pushing-thread, is it?

Purpose is relative.

My purpose in a college was enlightenment in the nature of the physical world. Pretty stupid.

1)The usual goal of an education is to demonstrate ability in a field to potential employers.

2) The goals of educators are to make income and educate. The second purpose is at odds with their managers who have a goal of their own--to make an income by demonstrable profit. They likely got their education in business management; the implementation of greed; one of the more honest offerings lectured by those that failed at the endevor.

3) The goal of "human resources" personnel is to make an income. To this end they like to hire people with documented credentials, or otherwise suffer the consequences (see managers, item 2). These people are educated in the above system of educational goal seeking. See items 1 & 2.

College education pretends to educate toward the goals of students in the career of their choice, students without a clue think it does, and hiring agents, not educated to decerning otherwise (see item 2), pretend it's of factual value.

Can you say corrupted?

This farce has its roots in college and university institutions, analogous to anthopomorphic global warming in motivational content.

 

[russ_watters]

1) Are you suggesting that only "utilitarian" courses of study be permitted? I don't think I want to live in that kind of society.

2) I was using "traditionally" in the traditional sense. I was referring to a time in the past. Surely, Russ, you are not suggesting that everything traditional is obsolete? That strikes me as just sloppy thinking!

Both of those are attempts at strawmen. I never suggested any such things.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. I just recently went back to school, at great financial sacrifice, because I can't imagine living the rest of my life without the joy of learning.

That's great for you, but would you agree that the overwhealming majority of students are not like you? See, the OP applied such an outlier to the general case, leading to an illogical conclusion. The reason this concerns me is because we have a career guidance forum and I don't want the OP going and giving bad advice based on inapplicable examples.

 

[klimatos]

That's great for you, but would you agree that the overwhealming majority of students are not like you? See, the OP applied such an outlier to the general case, leading to an illogical conclusion. The reason this concerns me is because we have a career guidance forum and I don't want the OP going and giving bad advice based on inapplicable examples.

Russ,

If you are running a career-guidance forum, then obviously you are focused on preparing the college-bound for rewarding careers. This is a laudable goal, and I am fully prepared to agree that such a goal is shared by the overwhelming majority of entering students.

However, not all entering students have that goal. Nor, in my opinion, should they. I believe that love of learning is a perfectly valid goal for some. I also believe that I should be able to voice that opinion in this Forum without being accused of leading students "on a path to ruin" (your words).

I also admit to being a little skeptical as to whether members of your forum really know what courses of study will lead to financial prosperity five, ten, or twenty years down the road. Previous academic attempts at playing Cassandra have not always been successful.

 

[ColonialBoy]

I must admit that the last few years have really changed my attitude about college. I know too many smart people who are underemployed because there seems to be no place for them in industry.

The biggest predictor of success is persistence not intelligence.
The book 'The Milionare Next Door' shows people who run menial businesses, save their money & make millions.

Absolutely peruse you passion. Buy it doesn't hurt to have some money-making ventures in the side. Making money is an art & science like any other, it can be learned. I ran a successful computer consulting business after graduating in computer science, now I have enough money to do what I want.

Working as a professor or for the govt may make you better off than some, but I can't see that leading to financial independence in the short term.

 

[noobilly]

I really don't know if you can say that the money and time that a person spent studying, say "Art History" can be said to be wasted or not, even if he doesn't work in the field after graduation. Sure if he does Art History for 4 years, then turns around and decides he wants an engineering job and has to study Engineering for another 4 years then the Art History time and money was, in a way, wasted.

On the other hand, if he does his Art History degree then comes out and does a "general business" type of job, who is to say he has wasted his time and money as compared to his coworker who did a business degree? Both got the same job, the Art History guy got to study what he liked in college. Doesn't seem like a waste to me.