Dean,

What is so amazing is that, apparantly, someone actually thinks the erecting of a giant vagina is something worthwhile...that anyone who had a thought to do something like that is worth giving so much as the time of day to....ah, well; its a wonderful world, huh?

Anyways, I understand your contempt for it all...friends and family have been after me my whole life to go to college; I point out that in any college in America, the chances of me being assigned to read "The Fall of the House of Hapsburg" is nil, and if I can't get an education which goes thusly: "But the crisis, when it came, hit hard. By the middle forties the pull of the cities had proved too strong. The new factories were too few to make work for the children of the poor peasants who came swarming in from the mountains and the arid plains to seek their fortunes, adding their number to the destitute handicraft-workers whose ancient way of life was going to pieces under the impact of the (industrial) revolution. As in other lands, the radical and revolutionary intelligentsia now had material to work with. And what happened next gave rise to the great question of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a question not yet answered, if only because it has not seriously been asked. Was the rise of the radical intelligentsia desirable, was their unchecked progress necessary in order that manking might be led to the broad uplands of democratic freedom? Or was the concept of democratic freedom a blind alley, developed to make the world safe for an intelligentsia which is only happy when playing at politics, at no matter what cost in suffering to the multitude?" - You don't get stuff like that in college, and thus the whole thing, unless one wants to be a doctor or engineer, is entirely a waste of time (I put law school in the "waste of time" class of activity - really, what do they teach in law school? It can't be difficult material, or else we wouldn't have such a confounded large number of lawyers in the United States). And when you add in the mind-numbing, quasi-fascist propaganda students are repeatedly subjected to in the name of utopian political correctness, the whole concept of college sends cold shivers down my spine. I admire you're guts in going thru it, but it does all make me question a bit your good judgement.

I've heard it said that the progression goes like this:

Bachelor: You think you know everything.

Masters: You realize you know nothing.

Doctorate: You realize, neither does anybody else.

Funny line. I wonder if it's still true? I've met so many idiots with master's degrees, and so many sharp, talented, motivated people with no degrees at all...

Hell, one of the most productive computer programmers I know dropped out of 6th grade and never went back to school. He doesn't think he knows everything. %-)

Mark: I am there for one reason and one reason only. I reached a point in my career where doors began being slammed in my face because I had no degree.

So I am getting the degree. My family depends on me, so I do what I need to do for them. It is that simple.

I have had a few people try to tell me how "tremendously enriching" this experience would be for me. I have to restrain an urge to either laugh or break something whenever I hear something like this.

Then there are those who tell me I will be a different person when I am through. Yes. Well, a slightly more cynical person when it comes to the subject of higher education, anyway.

Funny thing is? I'd like to be a teacher. Take a guess as to why.

Dean,

If you think that you're cynical now, trying teaching undergraduates some time (especially as a Teaching Assistant rather than as a professor). It's truly amazing to watch how no one learns anything, and then somehow everyone manages to forget it all after the test anyway. I still haven't figured out how that works.

But the worst part is talking to professors and realizing that they don't realize that no one is learning anything. I think that that's what I found the most madening.

(N.B. I recently got my MS in mathematics and this is where my experience comes from.)

This I just had to share:

Find your Role-Playing
Stereotype at mutedfaith.com.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled (richly deserved) attack on academia.

Darn. Oh well, you can see it at my blog.

I'm getting the degree also. The professors I have had seem to fall in three categories:
1). I am here. I am smarter and better than you. I can do whatever I please. I do not care.
2). I enjoy what I do. I value education and my field. I have a life outside of the walls of this institution. How can I help you?
and the most dangerous,
3). I haven't got a clue as to what I'm doing but do not dare tell me so.

Much of my time in classes is spent attempting to figure out which game the professor is playing, which hoop to jump through, and what they are saying that they aren't saying--that has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

Knowledge or information seems to be the currency of power in institutions of learning (?) and there seems to be a game that is being played by those who have information against those who do not. There is little exchange of true information or learning.

They seem to use information as a way to boost their egos because they don't get paid what they feel someone with their 'expertise' or 'time' should be getting paid. So, their so-called knowledge is lauded over those who need it and do not have it from the admissions office all the way through to to graduate school. They dole it out as if it were the king's loot.

Sadly, I used to enjoy class, learning, education. About one out of every five classes, I am fortunate enough to have a true professor who imparts caring and wisdom. I soak up every second.

I hope I can sustain my efforts long enough to prevent bitterness from taking over. No wonder 'Johnny can't read or write.' There aren't enough teachers to teach him.

Bachelor: You think you know everything.

Masters: You realize you know nothing.

Doctorate: You realize, neither does anybody else.

It's still true. I'm not getting anywhere in my doctorate (hard sciences), and I began to realize that:
1)information I get from other people is crap
2)other students graduate only by making stuff up

also I waste all this time on a blog addiction

I agree with you Dean, to a point. My undergrad was just a hoop to jumo through. I am working on my MBA right now and I have mixed feelings. The coursework is easy, although accounting is something that I would not wish on my worst enemy. The thing I like best is that at my school, Devry's Keller Graduate School of Management, all the teachers have jobs in the real world too. The real world tails and experiences are the best learning tool.

All this aside, I still do not know what I want to be when I go up. I've been a Naval Officer, business owner, engineer and teacher (adult computer classes). I've decided that any future corporate job will just be me sitting behind a desk looking at a computer screen.

Rather than suffer that fate I am taking the proverbial Paradigm shift. I start the police academy Mar 15.

I agree...

My favorite pair of philosophers have summarized my feelings regarding higher education.

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/04/

Nice to hear that I am not alone in thinking that the merits are suspect at best and probably toeing the line more than anything else. My partner and I were discussing this just last night. Talking about the money put away for the kids education and whether or not it would be used to pay for education. We agreed that there would be no mandate that the money be used to pay for school. I do not anticipate any kids of mine being raised to see anything other than the series of hoops that is is.

Excepting the hard sciences.

But the worst part is talking to professors and realizing that they don't realize that no one is learning anything. I think that that's what I found the most madening.

What's "madening" is that you apparently didn't learn how to proofread. Or spell.

I guess there really is no point in formal education beyond say, 6th grade. Get the kids back to the factories or out in the fields, weez got sum cottin ta pick.

Maybe my college experience was different. I learned, grew, matured, and yes, partied while earning my bachelor's degree. Of course, I was young and single - that made it much easier and enjoyable.

Dean, your argument uses exceptions rather than the norm. College graduates, on the whole, will make much better workers and ultimately be better able to critically think through issues. I am not saying that this ALWAYS applies, but more often than not it's true. Don't give me, "Well I know plenty of idiots with degrees." We all do, and thankfully, they are little competition against us at a job interview. Also, I smell a hint of sour grapes in your thread.

cti,

how do you know the professors don't realize that?

Tim, pardon my bluntness, but how would you know what the norm is?

"Dean, your argument uses exceptions rather than the norm."

I'll opine to the effect that Dean was attempting to illustrate that the 'norm' you speak of is a fallacy, today, whether it abounded during your college days or ever existed at all.

Certainly college grads will make better workers and be better able to think critically through issues. Better that what? Those who didn't go? Is that why you go to college? To be better than those who didn't?

I think you attend college to acquire the knowledge and skills to function in a field of your choice. This knowledge and these skills are not being absorbed though these schools keep turning out graduates.

I wish I had the opportunity to go to school years ago (I was born too late) when you did.
I'll never know but I believe that something has drastially changed. Not for the better.

Also, I smell a hint of sour grapes in your thread.

Your olfactories appear in good working order. Yeah, there are sour grapes. Dean needs a degree to get a job that he was qualified to do and was doing before the dot.com bubble burst.

Competition is a bitch. So many degreed people went unemployed - you have to have one to be competitive. Experience counts for less these days without that piece of paper.

Brett, here's how I "think" I know what the norm is: going to monster.com, jobs.com, or even a glance at the classifieds will tell you that most, if not all, white-collar professional jobs won't even look at a candidate unless they have a diploma.

No, I didn't go to college for job training and future income, I went to learn, play football, and to drink a little beer.

Things have simply changed, and not that drastically (those kids today, so crazy with their hip-hop music, drugs, clothes...oh wait, that sounds like the 1920s, 1960s, 1970s or any decade except the 1940s, we were busy then.)

I'm not pessimistic about today's generation, they are no worse than any generation - just different.

I'm not as worried about the liberal arts colleges as I am the state universities. As a liberal arts major, the most important thing I learned in college was to logically and critically examine both sides of an argument, support it with evidence, write about it, and discuss it.

I'm still being benefitted by the high quality education I received at my private liberal arts college...

On the other hand, I encounter people all the time who hold "hard degrees" from public universities whose highly specialized educations apparently excluded argumentation, logic, the use of evidence, and effective writing.

If there is anything that alarms me about today's university system, it's a twofold concern. First, the tendency for special interest groups to dominate curriculum choices, to the detriment of the students. Tell me what someone with a degree in "women's studies" (often consisting of biased and highly questionable "studies") will do for a living? Second, it's the narrowness of many degree specialities. There is this incredibly flawed assumption that business majors don't need classes in interpreting statistics, evaluating evidence, logic, and ethics. I think the Enron/Worldcom boondoggles should persuade us that perhaps they do...as do computer science majors, physics majors, biology majors, etc.

SG

Tim: Okay, okay. Fair enough.

"most, if not all, white-collar professional jobs won't even look at a candidate unless they have a diploma"

I agree 100%. The contention I have is whether having the diploma means you have any applicable skills.

The less than stellar students who put no critical thinking to work *before* attending college (to ensure they learn actual, applicable, skills instead of pantomiming whatever meets the course curriculum to graduate with that all-important diploma) are the chaff who populate the workforce and regularly display their ineptitude.

Having that diploma does not mean you have the skills.

What would you rather have? An employee with a diploma or one with skills? The point I am (laboriously) trying to make is that the diploma has lost the meaningfulnes it once had.

Excepting the hard sciences.

College graduates, on the whole, will make much better workers and ultimately be better able to critically think through issues.

Actually, not true, Tim. There is no difference except that people will often hire the college degreed person over someone without a degree.

I work in a field that is dominated by people with degrees (it is in the education arena, so it makes sense).

I don't have a degree in the field--I didn't finish college, yet I have never been unemployed in this field. I was self taught and mentored in the field.

I've never had a problem being employed in the field either and chose to work as a freelancer about 9 years ago. Since that time, I've always had more more than I could handle, and I turn down work all the time.

There is a real problem with folks who have degrees in the field, because life doesn't imitate the theory. The first 5 or more years they have to unlearn what college told them the profession would be like--then relearn how it really works. The theory involves all sorts of convoluted processes that most companies refuse to go through, or pay for. Those who learned in the trenches are much better able to shortcut development time (and use practical experience and "gut" to figure it out).

I once interviewed (over the phone) a woman who had recently completed her PhD. She was concerned that the pay range for the job wasn't high enough. I explained to her the number of resumes I had from people willing to do the work (about a 1,000) and she was shocked. Her response? "My Dad paid for this PhD and I think he'd be really upset if I took a job that paid so poorly."

Employers and clients look at EXPERIENCE. You can just as easily learn a profession by doing it, working your way up, than you can in school.

And, just so we're clear here, one of the types of things I'm asked to do is write college textbooks. I write the course material that some of you take. I do it as a ghost author--because the college professor is getting their name on the cover.

How to I figure out what to include in the material? About half the time I make it up or rely on practical experience.

A liberal arts education can occur by checking out books from the library and surrounding yourself with people who like to discuss such things. There's no shortage of books--just the time to read them all.

Great post Mrs. du Toit. I couldn't seem to get my head together to express what you posted. Experience is key. I learned more from my first boss about what/how/why things related to my field than I did in college. His degree was in political science. The field of work was information management and logistics.

For the most part he, and myself, were (was) self-taught and based on experience.

And I left off an 's' in my last post.

I don't know what degree you are going after Dean, but I can definately fill more than 2 pages on my "learned material" I am currently double majoring in Mathematics and BioChem. Maybe this is the reason, but another possibility I would lean to the fact that I was a bit of a misfit in high and this left me with a lot of shortcomings when I entered college. Hell my senior year I didnt show up before lunch at all. This left me with the need to "learn" in college instead of the standard regurgitation I see from some of my classmates.

One major problem I have, and it kind of goes along with your topic here, is that there is no way to simply get on with things. What I mean by this is that there is too much going through the motions, too much protocol, to much 1 size fits all course requirements.
Example: I recently added an information systems minor (Which will probably be disappearing soon) and was told that I had to start with a certain class. Not knowing the course description and being told that everyone in the program starts there, I signed up. And this great course that everyone involved in the info sys program turned out to be nothing more than Microsoft Office Practicum.
We made a table in word yesterday. *L*

A discussion of college degrees should include work ethic. There are people from all combinations of smart/stupid and hard working/lazy that fit both having diploma and not having diploma.

College is what you make of it, pretty much like everything else.

BTW I do admit that a college degree is increasingly becoming an entrance requirement. Makes me shudder to think what is going to happen when college degrees are as common as high school diplomas.

This post reminded me of the end of the Wizard of Oz, You know, where the Wizard tells the Scarecrow, They have no more brains than you, but they have something you don't have ...

A couple of random thoughts:

* IMHO, the humanities cannot be taught except through dialogue between a willing/prepared student and a competent instructor. The place where you'll find this opportunity is most likely to be a university. You may find this elsewhere. And you may go there and not take advantage of this opportunity. But those are your choices.

* Those without college degrees, like those without money, end up thinking more about the thing that's missing than those who simply have it. Those without college degrees also tend ot overcompensate and lack confidence in [or have a chip about] their ideas, even if they are clearly well-read and have good ideas. See Scarecrow. Get the degree, be certified as a member of the club, and move on.

* I knew nothing at the end of my undergrad degree except the sketchiest outline of human thought and history. My real "education" has been filling in some of the gaps in that outline. (It's still mostly gap. I don't know Schiller from Schopenhauer -- and despite have read about it something like 50 times, I could not tell you what Kant did to Hume's thought, though I know it was important. Something about a priori knowledge ...)

* Yes, it totally sucks that college degrees are required for most professional jobs. It's short-sighted and stupid, and gives people a false sense of their own abilities. As blogging as shown, ANYONE with a decent high school education can be a newspaper reporter. You have to know how to ask questions and write a simple, declarative sentence. And yet, and yet, we have master's programs in journalism.

* When I was a hiring writers, the only immediate disqualification was an Ivy League degree (except Penn or Dartmouth) or a degree from Rutgers (personal revenge).

I decided my senior year that I didn't really want to work in the field my degree was in (but at that point, it made more sense to finish the program than quit) I still think the degree (at $120000) was worth it; my parents don't since I don't have a job in the field. I think everyone ought to have at least 2 years of engineering training. It gives you a completely different perspective about the world as well as problem solving skills that you will use every day, even if your job description isn't anything close to "engineer"

Bryan,

Because I talked with many of them at length about it.

My father, a highly intelligent man who could have debated you on any number of subjects - Southern history being a favorite - had to drop out of the fourth grade during the Depression. One of my daughters, a highly intelligent young woman, has a master's degree in library science and three libraries under her belt - a large branch library, a community college library, and a medical library. The other daughter - equally intelligent - has a degree in chemistry and sells vintage clothes on eBay. Go figure.

I completed my formal education in a small Eastern North Carolina (no, not Calcutta, Janelle - sorry!) high school.

Then I, over the years and out of interest in a number of things, took advantage of the public libraries: Neil Postman, Linear B, medieval lepers, Sutton Hoo, "The Closing of the American Mind", Gildas and Bede, Carthage in ruins, Neandertals, the dendrochronology of Irish bog oaks, our American culture wars, mitochondrial DNA, Anglo-Saxon poetry, the vitrified forts of Iron Age Scotland - in short, I went anywhere curiosity took me.

Now, nobody on the planet is going to give me a dime for all that reading; whereas a degree in "Education" might net me a nice paycheck; that's a moot point considering my age and infirmities. But I didn't have any trouble home-schooling two children who went on to graduate summa cum laude at from a North Carolina college.

The moral of all this? I'm not sure. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Where does the value of a degree really come from? I think that it largely depends on the field, as many people have mentioned here science, medical and law degrees are probably still based largely on the education that comes with them.

With most other degrees, however, I wonder if the value comes more from the process. It is hard to compare statistics between college educated and non-college educated students because you don't have a control sample. The results are heavily tainted by the fact that most of the more capable people go to college. So are college graduates more capable because they went to college, or did they go to college because they were more capable? We know the latter happens, but it is difficult, in many cases, to show the former.

Still having a college degree does say something about the person's capabilities; especially if it is from a selective school. Colleges and Universities do a lot of screening and evaluation on students(far more than most employers), so employers know that college graduates have pass such screening(the quality of which is based on the university). They also know that the person is able to pass measured evaluations of knowledge, has some reasonable level of self discipline, and had the commitment to their profession to undergo a few years of training.

So even if college teaches nothing specifically relevant to the career, having a degree does give the employer a lot of positive information that they don't have on someone without a degree.

If the same person jumped into the workforce instead of college, they may have more knowledge that can be directly applied to the job (assuming they were working in a related job), but there is not nearly as much information immediately apparent about them that given the employer the impression they are exceptional. Sure, they can dig, research the person's background, interview them, and discover their capabilities for themselves, but most employers do not have a great deal of time to evaluate any and all applicants to a position.

It is not a fair way to evaluate people it is based on the generalization that college graduates are better workers than non-college graduates. Is it always true? No. But like any generalization, it is something to strongly consider, and when you get 100 resumes for a single position and have time to make only 5 interviews, it is a logical criteria to make.

Of course, I say all of this as someone without a college degree. I changed career paths and got in at the bottom and managed to work my way up in my field. My lack of degree has so far not been a barrier for me, and I hope that continues to be the case. I do, however, have no illusions about the fact that that lack does say something about me to potential employers. So far I've managed to overcome that, but it is certainly a mark against me. I have been responsible for hiring people many times. While I do tend to look as closely as I can at each one to find the best, a degree is frequently something that I look for. That may seem hypocritical, but sometimes I don't have time to dig and find someone like me. Of course, I also keep this in mind when I am applying for jobs and know that I have to work that much harder in order to be sure I stand out.

So I guess my point is that there is great value in a degree that is not related to the education provided by the college. I learned a great deal in college personally, but then, I studied Mechanical Engineering for 3 years, so I suppose my major fits in the aforementioned exceptions. Still, the time spent in college is hardly wasted, it does develop skills and it most certainly increases your apparent value to an employer.

Just my thoughts.

Wow...talk about getting depressed re the future of my HS senior daughter. At the tender age of 17-18, she doesn't know what she wants to do with her life. Did anyone? She doesn't want to go to college right out of HS, but statistics show that those who put it off usually don't go later. We would like for her to go for a business degree or something similar that will allow her to be able to support herself, but for the time being we are planning on sending her to the local community college for the first few years to just get the prerequisites that are needed for any field--English, math, western civ, etc. She can then decide what she wants to do/where she wants to go, before we pay for any degree. Is that awful of us?

Some kind of vo-tech school, such as ITT Tech, almost sounds good right now after reading some of these posts.

Community college and/or vo-tech would at least make sure she got some practical learning to go along with the hoop-jumping, cardeblu.

In my biased opinion, anyway. Then again, I'm in IT, and essentially a Junior Network Admin if you go by the nature of my duties. I've got an Associate's in Applied Science (Computer Information Systems) from a community college, quite a few microsoft certs, and I've got some vo-tech training. That and about a year of previous, vaguely related experience got me this job.

Why does education have such an outrageous pricetag? We imbue it with a value that makes us pay. Here's to autodidacts being the learning equivilant of Linux. Why pay for waht you can get for free, or at least a lot less. There is a small fortune to be made for a solid, inexpensive education.

I think the college experience was valuable, quite possibly far more than the degree itself. I was lucky in that I only had to deal with a couple of idiot teachers; most of the classes I had actually had good things about them. I ended up with a tiny degree that somehow took a lot of extra credits... my degree isn't impressive, but my transcript is more so.

Honestly, though, I needed the college experience from a social standpoint, and wouldn't give it up for the world. I had a lot of emotional development during those years and I think that if I had gone into the workforce I would be a bit stunted. Plus I wouldn't have met my husband... :)

cardeblu
I thought I knew what I wanted to do right out of high school. But at 26 I changed my mind and went to college. It was harder in some ways and easier in others, and I don't regret my choices.

Being older now (and therefore considered wise) my advice to youngsters is always to make the best choice they can, but don't lose sleep over it: you can change your mind later.

Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.
This link attributes this quote differently than I had seen it.

cardeblu;

Students who go to college right out of high school generally don't know why they're there except that's what their parents want them to do or society has this thing now that one can't get anywhere without a degree.

Those who do attend later actually know why they're there and attempt to make the most out of it. They also get the most out of it. They are also deeply annoyed by being surrounded by 18 year olds who haven't a clue.

My theory is that those who don't attend right out of high school and never find the reason or motivation to go later, probably don't have the motivation to attend in the first place or do well once they're in there. It is only by the 3rd year of college that they actually begin to find this reason for being there. If they waste the first two years in college or 'waste' it in the working world gaining some real life experience, the latter seems more preferable to me. It makes the first two years of college worthwhile.

I'm way older then 18, been all around the colleges with false starts, have a terminal degree now, tons and tons of real life experience, been the bad student, been the excellent student and have been a college teacher for undergrad and grad.
My theory is based on observations and I will say with conviction, most of the 18 year olds don't know why they're in college. They'll know eventually. I think everyone does. Even if they never went, they will usually realize why they should have for their own particular needs.
There are also those who don't need to go and know why they don't. They are more suited to fields or are working their way up in fields that don't require this piece of paper that certifies that they sat in a chair, jumped through hoops and completed the required 4 years.

There are courses that I hated taking [18-19] because I didn't understand why I needed to take those subjects when I wanted to learn this. Hence I did very poorly. Now, all these years later, I see the reasons and have learned it the hard way. Blessed are the wise in the prime of their youth!
:)

If only that were possible, eh?
Don't sweat your daughter. She'll figure it out when she does and maybe she'll know what she wants to be when she grows up and maybe college will figure in and just maybe it won't have to. College is not really a protection against bad choices. There are plenty out there who will vouch for the waste of time their college years were.
I'm not one of them. I gained immensely but for me it doesn't translate to -good job, good pay. That is an illusion.
It's also quite interesting to be overqualified for a job based on one's many degrees staring at the HR guy/gal who doesn't have one. My sister- an administrator of sorts, and who has no degree, claimed that she didn't offer a job to an applicant because he was overqualified and she didn't want to insult him because the job would be boring to him.
I love my sister and she generally has a good head on her shoulders, but...what's going on here?
The guy obviously needs a job. Why else would he be applying? If he's overqualified, wouldn't he already know that? So my sister gets someone who's less qualified and the headaches of training them, along with other stuff that I won't get into. She's smarter than the people she hires. I just don't think she's unusual.

A friend of mine, very talented, with degrees; attended a 'women's luncheon'. A professional meeting, if you will, of women in certain fields looking for positions in their field. Here's the advice for job seeking:
Tone down your accomplishments and possibly leave off your masters degree. Some of these people are intimidated by that.
She did. She got a job.
Nice world, e? Get educated, but not too much.

I see now I've turned this into a women's issue - kind of. But then, it applies to men too.

Gawd, I'm wordy.

I hated college. I'll say that right up front. I loved my reading, I loved a few of the interesting and smart people who happened to be my professors, and I loved being on the debate team, but I hated being a college student.

I think the reason that college grads tend to make better employees isn't that going to college prepares you for the work world, it's that the kind of people who tend to choose (or be pushed into) college are already better prepared than their peers. I was plenty well educated in high school, and I chose to go to college because that's what well educated high school kids are supposed to do. Poor, inner city kids, on the other hand, who are usually not encouraged to go to college, also often lack the social graces, understanding of the work world, and basic education that employers want. Really, a college degree isn't code for "I sat in classes for 4 years, so you should hire me," so much as "I'm the kind of person who was responsible and smart enough to decide to go to college and stick with it for 4 years, so you should hire me." Obviously, Dean and others are exceptions to this rule. But for the most part, employers want college grads because they figure that people who chose college are a different sort of people than those who chose something else. Is it true? To some extent. But it's used universally as a sign for "I share your values," and that's what people want.

Check out Hillsdale College in Michigan. It is one of the last true liberal arts colleges in the U.S.

Tim the Soldier's decision making creed:

When in doubt, join the Army. Not free, but PAID education. Service to country, choice of occupational specialty (certain restrictions apply), 30 days paid leave each year, free use of a weapons range. Travel, travel, travel.

Dean, I really do enjoy what you post and of course the people that add their comments.

It is good you are going to college and will soon have your degree. I bet family members are real proud of you and like you said, going to college will open those doors you need to help insure your family will be taken care of. I
believe just that statement alone is admirable and it speaks highly of your love for Rosemary, lil' Jacob and of course yourself.

My background in advertising, public relations and speaking would have been enhanced had I too gone to college.

I was thrilled the first time I had something published in print through a very classy jewelry chain. That one job helped me to better myself by offering classes through them to know all about diamonds and gemstones. Upon finishing that course I received a diploma through the American Gemology Institute of America. Boy, having that little diploma just sent me to the moon! That also enabled me to be able to write up advertising copy for that highly respected jewelry store. It helped the people in corporate office take a better look at me. The pride I felt was tremendous, and I later implemented a program for high school students that were interested in gemelogy from designing it to working in their field of choice.

Experience in itself is a great teacher. Have you heard the saying, "When the student is ready, the teacher will apear"? I believe there is wisdom in that.

I enjoyed reading your post and got such a kick out of what they are doing at Syracuse University with the, "Vagina Monolgus". The 13 students that jumped in and /or dove into the cardboard reproductive organ really cracked me up! That student, Nawricki said after he dove into it, "My experience with the giant vagina was fullfilling."" Ha,ha,ha...giggle giggle.

Question: Were you one of those funny students Tim? For some reason I would think so.
Good for you getting your college education and I like your Army promotion because it is true.

Oh, that large vagina reminded me of the movie with Robin Williams who played, I believe Patches. Oh that was a funny movie with a lot of truth and wisdom in it about going to college. That is a true story and the doctor Robin Williams potrayed, does have a nice hospital that I believe is in the Carolina's
somewhere. It is an inspiring movie. Oh, and to an earlier commenter, I love love love, the Wizard of Oz! I am still looking for my brain!

I share the belief that you get out of higher education about what you put into it. If nothing else, you have the time and tools to learn what you choose. Certainly, cynicism is self-inflicted handicap to learning.

Also, it’s not surprising that you need a degree to get a job as long degreed applicants are available. As a manager, you might be excused for hiring someone with the right degree(s) who turns out to be a moron. You’d be less likely to survive hiring a moron without credentials ;-)

Hey thanks Dean, I just went to look for that certificate that was collecting dust. Gemology grad. and found something else, giggle giggle.

Bailey Banks & Biddle certified... Diamond Consultant. Toot, toot, who cares if I toot toot!?! Guess I never hung them on a wall...went on to do other things.

It seems like I'm in the minority here on the boards in terms of really valuing and cherishing my college experience. I went in as a teenager eager to learn, eager to find myself and open myself up to the ideas of the world – history, science, philosophy etc. Maybe I was one of the few actually excited to really learn about myself and immerse myself in the academic world. I didn’t really expect my bachelor’s degree to propel me into the work world, so much as to expand my mind.

To those who are going to college just to get their degree for work, after having been in the world for a while, I can understand how it can seem redundant and punishing. After all, you’ve had your own experiences and time to grow. You might well have far surpassed what is taught in a typical college classroom aimed towards the 18 year old college freshman.

To the poster who was alarmed by majors “dominated by interest groups” to paraphrase you, perhaps you don’t have a full understanding of what is taught in these majors. A common mistake is the belief that Women’s Studies = Male bashing feminist dogma. In my program at least, this could not be further from the truth. I double majored in Political Science and Women’s Studies and find both to be equally challenging, valuable and relevant to my present work (Human Rights law specializing in family and child advocacy). I chose to major in Women’s Studies because I valued the interdisciplinary range of courses, strong research and critical studies aspect of the core program and the chance to be taught by and have strong academic female role models. I also came from a family where women were repressed and belittled by men, and I yearned for the chance to be surrounded by professors who could be strong examples for me. I took courses in Sociology, Psychology, History, Literature, Law, and Music History etc. The core curriculum consisted of researching and implementing a non-profit, grass roots level community based organization that would benefit society. In other words, over the course of 2 years, students learnt to understand the structure, find funding and run a non-profit organization of their own formulation through mentorship, internships, research and work. This experience has been invaluable to me, as I have gone on to work in a field that I truly care about.

I personally think that college was invaluable to me as it just opened my mind to so much more than I think I would have found on my own. Not to mention being able to speak to professors who truly cared about learning, and being surrounded by a myriad of people from around the globe who were constantly engaged in debate and dialogue. But then again, as someone has already stated, like anything else, college is what you make of it, and how it fits into your life at then time you attend.

It seems like I'm in the minority here on the boards in terms of really valuing and cherishing my college experience. I went in as a teenager eager to learn, eager to find myself and open myself up to the ideas of the world – history, science, philosophy etc. Maybe I was one of the few actually excited to really learn about myself and immerse myself in the academic world. I didn’t really expect my bachelor’s degree to propel me into the work world, so much as to expand my mind.

To those who are going to college just to get their degree for work, after having been in the world for a while, I can understand how it can seem redundant and punishing. After all, you’ve had your own experiences and time to grow. You might well have far surpassed what is taught in a typical college classroom aimed towards the 18 year old college freshman.

To the poster who was alarmed by majors “dominated by interest groups” to paraphrase you, perhaps you don’t have a full understanding of what is taught in these majors. A common mistake is the belief that Women’s Studies = Male bashing feminist dogma. In my program at least, this could not be further from the truth. I double majored in Political Science and Women’s Studies and find both to be equally challenging, valuable and relevant to my present work (Human Rights law specializing in family and child advocacy). I chose to major in Women’s Studies because I valued the interdisciplinary range of courses, strong research and critical studies aspect of the core program and the chance to be taught by and have strong academic female role models. I also came from a family where women were repressed and belittled by men, and I yearned for the chance to be surrounded by professors who could be strong examples for me. I took courses in Sociology, Psychology, History, Literature, Law, and Music History etc. The core curriculum consisted of researching and implementing a non-profit, grass roots level community based organization that would benefit society. In other words, over the course of 2 years, students learnt to understand the structure, find funding and run a non-profit organization of their own formulation through mentorship, internships, research and work. This experience has been invaluable to me, as I have gone on to work in a field that I truly care about.

I personally think that college was invaluable to me as it just opened my mind to so much more than I think I would have found on my own. Not to mention being able to speak to professors who truly cared about learning, and being surrounded by a myriad of people from around the globe who were constantly engaged in debate and dialogue. But then again, as someone has already stated, like anything else, college is what you make of it, and how it fits into your life at then time you attend.

cti,

would you believe that I work with a number of them and sometimes function as one myself? Most of the professors I know *know* that the vast majority of students in their classes are tone deaf when it comes to education. They are just there to get the degree. Why do the professors keep it up, because every semester, there are 1 or 2, maybe even a half dozen, who really soak it up like a sponge. They get turned on by knowledge in ways they had not been previously.

I think the college degree is worthwhile for someone who doesn't know what they want to do when they leave high school, but they have the requisite level of intelligence. It allows them to explore their options and find a "fit" in a universe of people - many of whom are different than they are.

And I speak as someone who quit college with 28 hours left, and then went back to finish four years later. When I went back, I was astonished at how different I was from the average new college student. I had work-world experience and a desire to be done with the classes and do the best I could. I think some of what dean is experiencing comes from that difference in worldview.

You don't like the college experience? As the marketer said to the businessmen about the home shopping network: "Good, it's not aimed at you."

When looking at any phenomenon, it's important to look at trends over time. Whatever value college education has at present, it's important to ask: is it more or less valuable than it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? What is the trend line?

I don't think there's much question that *in general* the trend is toward a college education being less-meaningful in terms of both:(a)specific career-relevant knowledge, and (b)general knowledge about the world (liberal education).

Obviously, there are huge differences among colleges, majors, and professorial luck of the draw. But, in general, higher education is absorbing an ever-higher proportion of the GDP--and delivering less and less in return.

some observations from one of THEM (PhD in hard science, academic tenured position)

1) universities do not care about teaching. They CLAIM they do, but what they really care about is whether the faculty gets publications (prestige) and grants--they especially like the grant$. no one gets tenured for teaching and those of us who like doing it have to pretend we don't around promotion time. As one of my untenured colleagues said, nothing says "death knell" like a teaching award.

2) many students do not care about learning. I have had students who blow off my problem sets then arrive in my office asking for more points "because, well, y'know, I want a higher grade". In fact I have seen a striking change in the students over the last 10 years, many of them are more passive consumers who view education not as a process or a partnership, but as a commodity . They're paying their tuition and I owe them a degree BECAUSE of that. College is just what you do after high school. Maybe it's the video game generation.

3) This makes mature students, those who go back to school, and even those who just took a year off to bum around Europe, particularly notable. Mainly because they know why they're there. Some of the young ones do, too, though their numbers are swamped by the passive consumers.

4) I have and will go to the mat to teach any student who wants to learn, no matter how difficult they find it. I will not give them more points because "y'know, I just want a higher grade and I'm paying for this".

5) I think there are real differences between science/math faculty and humanities. part of this is the innate subjectivity of humanities. I have some very, very unworldly colleagues over there.

"Oh, and to an earlier commenter, I love love love, the Wizard of Oz! I am still looking for my brain!"

And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why I got called a liar and a fraud in public. Or is this the standard treatment dealt out here to harmless strangers?

Tim the Soldier's decision making creed:

When in doubt, join the Army. Not free, but PAID education. Service to country, choice of occupational specialty (certain restrictions apply), 30 days paid leave each year, free use of a weapons range. Travel, travel, travel.

I was wondering when someone would make this argument. Where I work they only hire two types of people, college and ex-military. To tell you the truth, other than the hard science slots (it IS a chem plant after all) I can't see a lick of difference between them. (I was USMC 80-84 BTW)

Gupps

Well, with 12 years of higher education under my belt, I guess it's apparent that I think it's worth it. Although it was the highly technical portion of medical school and residency that gave me my career, I really enjoyed undergrad the most. Of course, I had a scientific degree ( had a med school classmate who majored in economics, that was not a pretty sight to watch the first year!). Part of my liberal arts requirement was philosophy, and also music. Initially there was quite a bit of eye-rolling going on there, but then I developed a liking for classical music (not something I ever heard in my home town) and ended up with a second major in philosophy. I think these things helped me be a better doctor. Sadly, my poor student self sold most of those textbooks and kept the now out-dated science books. Little did I know I'd kick myself for that ten years down the road.

It is my firm belief that a good liberal arts education does broaden the horizons and increases the critical thinking capacity of most people who really give it a try. While I know well-read, interesting people who did not go to college (my dad, for instance), I personally find liberal arts graduates to be more interesting overall. My husband, the ChemE major, only piqued my interest because he got his degree from Berkeley (and by default was exposed to interesting viewpoints). Plus he really looked nice in his cycling shorts- but I digress.

Dean, you may be right in that a degree has not added to your fund of knowledge, but I don't believe that can be said of the rest of us. The trick, of course, is getting a quality liberal-arts education.

Approaching 70, I reflect not unfondly on my own academic experiences, which included a brief spell at the Chicago Undergraduate Division (Navy Pier Branch) of the University of Illinois in autumn 1952 when I was 18, before I was called to active duty in the US Army for two years service, to the undergraduate degree in journalism and communications that I finished 10 years later. Then the masters degree in urban and regional planning that I completed in 1976. Still later, I added course work toward an noncompleted PhD at the University of Wisconsin.

Both degrees offered me challenging readings, seminars, and later, quality professional employment. Both experiences provided me an intellectual impetus to read widely and thoroughly, which is an enjoyment all in its own league.

Still later, without the benefit of any additional university studies, I came early to the world of microcomputers (1981), bought one of the first IBM-PCs, taught myself some Basic and database programming, and went into business. That proved the most rewarding activity of all.

My wife, Stefi (Stefanija Prasnjak Harris), completed two degrees in anthropology and archaeology, and acquired a lifelong intellect fed by three decades of specialized studies in historical linguistic development, psycholinguistics, and related fields.

All told, I would say that education is what each of your personally make of it, not what you expect it to make of you.

Mark Noonan,

Am I the only man in the USA, besides you, who not only heard of "The Fall of the House of Habsburg", and who read it, but who also has a copy of it?

I tremble in sadness when I think of the central Europe of 1914 that went all to smash following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. All that mass death, generations of communism, fascism, national socialism and all else that was generated by the world crisis in 1914, is like a nightmare that appears from time to time in my consciousness.

Stefi has an old handbill from a 1916 production in one of the great theatres on Zrinjevac (the fashionable central city parkway) of Zagreb, my wife's home town and one of the great cities of Habsburg southeastern Europe. "Salome", I think it was. We treasure it, that forgotten memento of a forgotten era in a Europe from which the lamp lights had already been extinguished.

It is too bad that people in southern Poland, Czecho-slovakia, Ruthenia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Vojvodina could not have been given some foresight into what would become of their Europe, with the collapse of the great empire that kept them together, if not in total equality, at least in peace and prosperity.

"Sic transit gloria."

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I only attended a brief amount of Community College before dropping out for a job that paid very well. After 3 years, I was laid off and had to basically start from scratch. My family never had the money to send me to school, and I sure didn't qualify for any grants or scholorships. I'm now the IT Director for a law firm in Los Angeles and constantly am reviewing and renewing what I know. There is part of me that is afraid I'll be exposed for the fraud I am and that I'll never get a job in the industry again. Then there is another part of me that realizes that I can hold my own in conversations, have the experience, and there's nothing to worry about. But I'm always feeling the need to know as much as I can and study, study, study.

To get back to the topic at hand. Yes, I believe college degrees, IN SOME FIELDS, are a tremendous advantage and essential. But otherwise, they are just a piece of paper. In many job postings, I see an education requirement OR EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE. The one advantage I can see is that it shows to a potential employer that the grad put in their time, showed the ability to complete something, and is at least somewhat familiar with the concepts. But a simple question and answer period should really clarify if a candidate knows their stuff or not. Experience vs. college degree... I think I would give the advantage to experience.

I was told recently by somebody looking to hire somebody that they were looking for 80% personality and 20% knowledge. The reason is that they can fill in the knowledge gap, but they can't teach somebody to get along with others. That kind of reinforced my thinking. If you show the ability to think quickly on your feet and problem solve, and if you have a good personality, you should be able to succeed in most things you try. Take it from somebody who knows first hand... a lawyer who just passes the bar is in NO WAY ready to be a real lawyer. Like a previous contributor said... they may have the credentials, but now they have to apply their book knowledge to the real world and sometimes it ain't pretty.

Tim,

A degree is just something which allows a timeserver in the Human Resources department off the hook; don't have to think carefully about whom would be the best addition to the company, just demand the piece of paper and, bingo, you're off the hook if the person hired ends up being someone who likes to eat toe jam.

As for me, I've always loved doing interviews - on both ends of the subject. Nothing is more fun then dancing rhetorical circles around a dimbulb with a degree in business who's trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I've never, ever taken more than two weeks to get a job after leaving a job (usually as a result of my being entirely bored with whatever it was I was doing) and I've never, ever been fired from a job - and never left a job without the boss trying to hire me back a week later.

Business, you see, is superlatively simple to conduct and anyone who pays a bit of attention will swiftly have it figure out...meanwhile, a bit of reading up on the latest buzzwords will get anyone through the initial interview. In my working life since the Navy I have managed the after-sales customer care for flooring products, sold insurance, ran an 80 person telephone sales center, did background checks on casino patrons, scheduled construction jobs and a few other jobs besides...in each and every case, I had zero experience in the particular field before starting, and was usually paid 50% more a year after starting....easy, easy, easy...and the only reason I'm not a high school dropout is because Uncle Sam demanded a high school diploma for my entry into the Navy (without that requirement, I would have given my senior year a miss).

Tim,

In that one telesales job, I recall a 19 year old kid who came in for an interview - tatoos and piercings everywhere, no address (the kid was outdoors), clothes which would have made a wino ashamed of his appearance...we hired him; turned out, he was brilliant at any task assigned (though he did take a bit of cleaning up to make him business-friendly) - what sold me on him was his story; left home at 14 and had taken care of himself and, also, he had the guts to come to an interview looking like that. Someone with a degree would have shown the kid the door...as it was, we picked up a computer whiz on the cheap.

Dean,

Perhaps for the same reason I'd like to teach - for the fun of being able to impart to young minds a genuinely independent way of thinking. It was my parents who did it for me - any question asked invariably lead to a book in the capacious library being pointed out.

Dean,

Oh, and since you're going about defending the liberal tradition yadda, yadda, yadda...perhaps you'd take a stab in a later thread at answering the question posed in my first response. The answer, once determined, will go a long way towards settling things once and for all. Plus it would really be cool to have a forum to explain precisely why everyone who thinks eventually becomes a conservative.

There are two explanations for college degrees that I've found provactive:

1. A "signaling mechanism," or so would say the economists. By getting the degree, the graduate has actively demonstrated the ability to dillegently hold to a field of study while paying to learn it, hence is arguably more likely to dilligently hold to a field of study when getting paid to execute it.

2. A tool/resource locator. Sure, anyone with a public library nearby and Internet access can find nearly any information with enough time and dilligence, but (a) depending on the field of study, that may not be as effective as hands-on work with someone who already knows the topic and (b) even though you may not use most of the theory you pick up in college, it can be a shortcut to some very useful information sources. Knowing WHERE to find information (especially unusual or highly specialized types that are not always obvious even in a library database) is equally as valuable as already having information, because you can only remember so much -- but you can always look up more in a time of need.

AM, you forgot #3...

"He can bs well enough to get a degree, he can bs well enough to sell anything to anybody.":)

Bryan,

The problem is that when none of the students are learning anything, it's worth thinking about changing the course a bit.

As a simple example, as wonderful as it is to know how to integrate the secant cubed (i.e. sec^3(x)), it doesn't teach anyone anything besides the fact that if you desperately try enough combinations of symbols, you can often come up with a solution. Wow. Brute force works. Who'd have thunk it?

There are a wide array of examples that I can pull out from a typical college calculus series; people have homework in doing reiman sums, as if it could possibly be a worthwhile exercise for a human being to do. Writing a program to compute reiman sums, fine. Doing them out by hand? That's a joke.

Learning several different special cases of how to compute the volume of rotated solids? This is not education, it's technical training for jobs which don't exist. Learning the principle of how you can collapse two dimensions into one and use single variable integration to obtain a volume? That might teach people to think.

Which is why, I guess, most of the lecture gets spent on the technical training for non-existent jobs and about 3 minutes gets spent on the part that might teach someone something useful.

I'm all in favor of education; what I'm not so much in favor of is all of the excess schooling that achieves no education. What's frustrating is when professors get so attached to the schooling that they no longer consider whether it's achieving any education at all.

There are times in life when you can go faster by slowing down. It's not uncommon for teacher to try to teach 100 things and students learn 3 when if they tried to teach only 10 things (in the same amount of time) students might learn 6. Modern education is failing rather spectacularly. If you doubt this, go talk to some students and ask them what they've learned more than 6 months ago; for kicks, try testing them on it.

When our educational system can accept that it's all right if people fail in some subjects and consequently it's all right if tests aren't all tests of memorization (memory is about the only ability which is distributed among students in the normal distribution which test makers want the grades to follow). Right now you only get courses with such tests (i.e. tests that aren't primarily about memorization) in the later years of college and in grad school (and even in both of those, memorization still often plays a large role).

But maybe some day we'll have an educational system whose primary goal is to teach, rather than to get bell shaped grade distributions. Well, I can dream, can't I?

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread. Got to read that Hapsburg book now. The history of Central Europe is a huge gap in that education I've been meaning to get to back up my degrees.

"...scheduled construction jobs and a few other jobs besides..."

I'm in awe, Mark. I cannot do scheduling for the life of me. I don't think they even pretended to teach it (while actually indoctrinating students in post-modern theories of why schedules are cultural constructs with no intrinsic existence) where I went to college, more's the pity.

(Oh, and IB Bill, if you're still reading, why Penn and Dartmouth?)

I think the deeper question is - should college prepare you for work or should college give you a well rounded education?

The Perfessor's (about 47th post) second point, students feeling they paid for the grades and not striving to earn them, is dead on.

Arnold Harris nails it a few posts later, education is what each of you personally make of it, not what you expect it to make of you.

Mark Noonan provides closure with an appropriate anecdote about an exception to the irritating quasi-requirement of needing a diploma to get a chance to prove yourself on the job.

I paid for my diploma, didn't work too hard to get it (but then, as noted above, much of school is measured through memory and mine is eidetic) and only got it to qualify for certain jobs. I knew then, as now, that one or two more pieces of paper will (likely) be required to make an appreciable difference in my bottom line earning power as long as I continue to desire to work for someone else.

It is a terrible waste of resources and time that could (should, due to your age at the time) be used to develop so many skills and who you are as a person. Anyone following this thread should really check this out:

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/04/

Shit, after reading this thread, I'm almost afraid to admit I've got a college degree...

Dean, actually I agree with much of what you (and many of the commenters) say about book-larnin', professors, and a college education&mdash as I detailed in another thread on this topic, about a year ago. And I agree, many a recent graduate has to be disabused of the worthless crap theory he learned in the classroom, and get some real-life experience under his belt.

But... But, but, but...

Too much of what I'm reading in these comments sounds uncomfortably like an attitude I saw far too much of, growing up in a small town in Wisconsin forty years ago. You understand, I'm sure, that there are people who take the very same attitude you're taking, not just toward book-larnin', professors, and a college education... but toward reading and learning and thinking, as such.

With much the same emotional edge.

There are all too many people out there, Dean, who think that it's stupid to read books. Stupid to delve and read and educate yourself. Stupid to cultivate your mind— even on your own— in any manner which doesn't lead straight to a bottom-line, dollars-and-cents return. Stupid to think, or to ponder, or to ask questions.

I grew up in a cultural setting where this was pretty much the attitude. A man was supposed to know as much as he needed to know, in order to do his workaday job competently. No less. And no more: woe betide the man who had a self-taught knowledge of American history, or of stamp collecting, or of classical music. That was women's stuff: the ladies, meeting in their women's club, might well be permitted an interest in Tennyson or whatever. And there were women who were profoundly steeped in music or poetry or literature. But the only men who could get away with this frippery were those who belonged to the "professions"— at that place and time, roughly speaking, this meant doctors, lawyers, and ministers.

Heaven help any other adult male who had read, or thought, or educated himself, above and beyond his station in life. No matter how capable he was in his everyday work, he had committed the cardinal sins of knowing too much and stepping beyond the pale.

I just thank God that my own family did not share in this attitude. I grew up loving to read and think and learn— learn on my own, that is. Just as I grew up detesting the soul-sapping force of schools and teachers and classwork. Even had I not gone on to college, I would have pursued, on my own, much the same course of reading and creativity and learning that I did.

Really, on the worthlessness of schools and college and whatnot, you know I'm pretty much in agreement with you, Dean.

But I will never give an inch to those philistines who despise learning and thinking as such. And some of the comments in this thread sound just a bit too much like that ugly attitude I encountered, growing up in my home town long ago.

Sean:

Penn grads are usually bright, decent folks who've had the humbling experience of being turned down at one or two or all of the other Ivies. It's true. You can look it up.

Dartmouth is more difficult to explain. For some reason, I've never run into an obnoxious Dartmouth grad. You don't get the sense of entitlement you get at some of the other Ivies. And the writer of Animal House went there and based it on his fraternity, so I'm gonna assume the movie was based on Dartmouth.

BTW, this bias only applies to undergrad. Grad schools are a different story.

Paul:

You aren't kidding. I have some scars from that time, too.

I don't have to look it up, IB Bill; I went to Penn. That's why I was asking. As someone from a working-class family who'd spent an abortive six weeks the fall after high school in the "college" (really a religious seminary with some IMS courses) our church ran in Big Sandy, TX, I was thanking my lucky stars to be there freshman year. I found it beyond insufferable to listen to whiners from Greenwich, CT, who thought their lives were over because they'd hadn't gotten into Yale and had to choose between Penn and Chicago. It's a cruel world.

Maybe it's the skiing that mellows the Dartmouth people?

"I myself was spared the intellectual humiliations of a college education."

(H.L. Mencken, and me, too.)

IB Bill,

Good for you - of course, Crankshaw, the author of the book in question, has a bunch of others which repay reading...."Kruschev, A Career"; "The Shadow of the Winter Palace"; "Maria Theresa"; "Bismark"; "Russia and the Russians"; "Gestapo, Instrument of Tyranny"; "The Hapsburgs"; "Vienna: The Image of a Culture in Decline"...a very prolific writer.

Sean,

It was tricky, for a bit - had jobs in 7 States...only a firm grounding in geography got me thru it; I doubt much that geography is included in any business degree, but its vital in any human activity....there's tremendous implications in knowing, for instance, that Africa, the second largest continent, has the shortest coastline of any continent; explains its poverty pretty much right there.

Business degrees, from my experience, leave out that - generally, I don't believe in trying to pigeon-hole an education unless one is going into a scientific discipline....an all 'round knowledge is what should be striven for, as well as character development.

"there's tremendous implications in knowing, for instance, that Africa, the second largest continent, has the shortest coastline of any continent; explains its poverty pretty much right there"

So that's why the Japanese government throws so much money at earth-moving projects: the country needs to cragify its coastline to get the economy going again. :)

Welcome to college. I think the problem starts far earlier than college though - America's education system pretty much sucks. Its more of a daycare than anything else and by the time we get to college (forced by our parents generally and the sad understanding that the corporate world will treat you like shit without a degree, and even with one) we're so turned off from learning and actually carrying that 90% of a college population couldn't care less. Think the teachers don't start to share that?

In the end I learn more from my friends and picking up their text books than I have from my teachers. I just BS through the classes and taking the learning in the dorms and apartments. Its funny, in the end I'm paying 30k a year for friends when ya get down to it. Atleast I'll come out with three job experiences spanning almost two years. Worth more than a liberal arts degree

I'm not sure that Africa's coastline is the cause of its lack of development.

Having lived there for two years, the answer is pretty simple. Two keys: Heat. Malaria. They just suck the life out of you and the locals.

Sean: Yeah, maybe it's the skiing, maybe it's living in New Hampshire, which doesn't put up with a lot of "airs." But Dartmouth seems OK.