Schools What is the purpose of a college education?

[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.

 

[ColonialBoy]

I'm pretty sure in The Preppy Handbook they recommend studying Art History, because the modern gentleman lives off his trust fund & should not be seen doing anything that looks like work! BTW Its what Prince William & his wife studied.

 

[aonali6]

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 think we should not learn having mind that we will get a good job... But we should learn to learn something and for our personality development...!

 

[MrNerd]

Personally, I go to college because I can't really imagine any decent paying jobs without the degree, other than things like entrepreneur, which you can do on your own anyway.

How many decent jobs(like a rough percentage) don't require a college degree, anyway?

 

[blip]

I think too many people go to university without knowing what they want. I got my BS in Computer Science and later became a math teacher. Now that I'm a bit older I have had a number of different interests and sort of bounced between them. It helps when getting a job, but it's not for everyone. I sometimes wish I'd done a trade school. Maybe became a plumber and electrician or something. I find teaching also quite satisfying. After being a programmer and working in the office environment for 3 years, well... meh.

 

[lisab]

I think too many people go to university without knowing what they want. I got my BS in Computer Science and later became a math teacher. Now that I'm a bit older I have had a number of different interests and sort of bounced between them. It helps when getting a job, but it's not for everyone. I sometimes wish I'd done a trade school. Maybe became a plumber and electrician or something. I find teaching also quite satisfying. After being a programmer and working in the office environment for 3 years, well... meh.

I'm not so sure...I bet if you delay college until you know what you want to be when you grow up, you'll never go.

 

[DoggerDan]

Personally, I go to college because I can't really imagine any decent paying jobs without the degree, other than things like entrepreneur, which you can do on your own anyway.

How many decent jobs(like a rough percentage) don't require a college degree, anyway?

I'd say 2/3 of all jobs don't require a college degree. I say that because 2/3 of people in the U.S. don't have a college degree.

I'd say closer to 90% of the jobs in the U.S. don't really require a college degree, but rather, require someone with savvy, experience, and some on the job training to bring them up to speed. The idea that everyone should have, much less needs, a college degree is bonkers. If anything, it's setting a lot of folks up for failure while collecting an unemployment or welfare check (both? Eek!) because it's beneath their dignity to sling burgers.

I can't tell you how many times I thought about quitting diving and finding some job in a warm climate either pushing a broom, tending bar or slinging burgers!

Ideally, the purpose of a college education is to educate one to the level one can be reasonably educated, so as to improve one's chances of finding a good-paying job that will allow them to work at their optimum level. That is, they'd good at and enjoy what they do, but not out of their league.

 

[DoggerDan]

I think too many people go to university without knowing what they want. I got my BS in Computer Science and later became a math teacher. Now that I'm a bit older I have had a number of different interests and sort of bounced between them. It helps when getting a job, but it's not for everyone. I sometimes wish I'd done a trade school. Maybe became a plumber and electrician or something. I find teaching also quite satisfying. After being a programmer and working in the office environment for 3 years, well... meh.

An acquaintance of mine got an undergrad in some field (unk) but totally unrelated to science or engineering. In her 30's she realized she had some serious talent with computers, went back to school for a second degree, this one in electrical engineering, graduated with flying colors, and worked for a decade and a half for a couple of major, well-known computer firms.

Many of you are using the results of her work.

Then, she realized that's not what she likes to do, so she quite, started baking scones for a local coffee shop, and does similar types of green Earth activities around town for income.

Not much income, but really, how much income do you really need? While many of my buddies kept expensive apartments, I usually lived in some pretty cheap digs. I kept my expensive things (stereo, TV) at their place for safe-keeping, and would enjoy them in their company! None of my neighbors knew how much I made. If they did, I'd probably have been robbed.

Wasn't home much anyway, and I'd often time longer jobs with the end of my lease, so 20% of the time I didn't have a home, anyway, except at sea.

Keeping up with the Joneses stinks. In fact, part of the reason so many people are bent on getting a college degree is that it's been drummed into their heads they have to keep up with the Joneses, when they'd be happier pursuing vocational or technical training. "Training," mind you, not necessarily a degree. Colleges and universities are big businesses. They're selling those degrees like they're going out of style, and from some of the feedback I'm getting from local HR departments, at least some of those degrees may be going out of style!

Guitar? Please. No one from a garage band to a symphony orchestra would care less if you had a degree. "Play me something." If you keep playing what they like and in a way that says you know more about what you're doing than the next person, you're hired.

Sorry, I'm rambling. It's been a long week, and yet I've one more day to go.

 

[twofish-quant]

Not much income, but really, how much income do you really need?

If you are making just enough income to match outgo, then you are going to be in a heap of trouble if things change.

Something that tends to be true is that overseas Chinese like myself and Eastern European Jews are often obsessed over money (and astrophysics), because having money and smarts keeps you from getting killed when everything falls apart, because with money you can bribe your way out or run away if you need to be.

The reason I'm alive has to do with the fact that my grandparents had the money and/or brains to send people out of the country when everything fell apart.

Keeping up with the Joneses stinks. In fact, part of the reason so many people are bent on getting a college degree is that it's been drummed into their heads they have to keep up with the Joneses, when they'd be happier pursuing vocational or technical training.

It's not keeping up with the Joneses that motivates me. It's been drummed into me that you must be educated, because education is the only thing that will keep you alive if everything falls apart. If you have to leave everyone that you've known in your entire life and start over in a foreign country, having brains that they can use is what is going to convince them to let you in.

Also in my world, happiness isn't that important. When you are running around with people trying to kill you (which fortunately I've never had to deal with, but my parents did), then "happiness" is not important. Survival is, and education is how you survive.

 

[Choppy]

Somewhere in our collective psyche a social dichotomy occurs within the middle class: the officer and the enlisted man, the doctor and the nurse, or the manager and the mail room runner. Historically one of the key distinctions between these groups has been the level of education.

But now, we're living in a world where everyone has a lot more access to information. Historically, the common person couldn't learn differential equations, because most local librbaries were lucky to have stocked an intoductory calculus book. You couldn't easily look up the side effects of a given drug, because you had to go to a medical sciences library for that. Today, people can look up such things almost as fast as they can think of the questions. (Separating out the misinformation, of course, is another matter.)

So the distinction in this dichotomy becomes even more - the piece of paper. Thus more people set out to get it, and begin to see it as only that.

The industrial world of course, adapts to this as well. Generations ago, the fact that you had spent years studying things that most people didn't have access too - even if you weren't particularly good anything - gave you a certain value over anyone off the street. Perhaps that value is diminishing, and instead being given to people who actually are good at something (or at least those who are good as casting such an illusion).

 

[xdrgnh]

It all depends what you want to do after college. Sometimes you go to college just because you want a good job and not for the pure pursuit of academia. Some on the other hand go because they need to learn certain knowledge so they can start doing original academic work and college is the most effective way of learning this vital material. For example it's very difficult today to be a physicist without a college education because there is just so much to learn on your own. College makes it far easier and more efficient.