Your Kids Will Not Go to Brick and Mortar Colleges
First of all, traditional education is becoming too expensive. Secondly, the nature of education itself is changing to address the rapid-change nature of contemporary realities.Of course, it is absurd for parents and schools to try to send every child to college. Even in Finland, where K-12 schools are actually pretty good, they aim for roughly 50% college bound from high school. As Charles Murray points out, based upon mental aptitude only 25% to 30% of youth can fully benefit from a four year college education and degree. This is true in the US, it is true in Germany, and it is true in China.
There are clutters of billionaires who never graduated from college--even several who never graduated from high school. Even if a student plans to finish a four year college or more, it might pay off for him to take a year or so off to reflect on things. Or he may want to look into a year of "college alternative," to inject a huge dose of "world knowledge" into his experience.
Personally, I agree with Charles Murray that for many "hands on" young people, more practical alternatives to college might be a much quicker way to wealth, enlightenment, and genuine knowledge than most four year college degrees will be.
Society does not need the current inflated level of college graduates. What is more, society does not need the academically lobotomised products being produced by so many academic departments of indoctrination, on "post-modern" bricks and mortar campuses.
Rapid change in the workforce requires an education that is "faster on its feet", more adaptable to the fleet future on our doorstep. Parents who want their children to have a life off the government dole, should consider some of these things early.
Labels: education, Finland, University
posted by al fin at 4:06 pm
8 Comments:
"What is more, society does not need the academically lobotomised products being produced by so many academic departments of indoctrination, on "post-modern" bricks and mortar campuses." I explicitly did not go through college education for exactly that reason. I am 26 years old, and 10% less than the national median average income for households of four.
I expect that my income will be growing proportionately in the years to come.
The flaw in this argument is that one does not go to college to learn a particular thing. You can learn just about any subject by pulling the relevant information off of the net and have a modest lab setup (for electronics or biotech). The purpose of college education is to get a credential that tells employers that you are smarter than all of those kids that did not get admitted into the college that you graduated from.
The purpose of college education is to serve as a screening method for prospective employers.
I am getting my degree online at the age of 36. I don't need it though; I could retire in two years and never work again if I chose to. I have pondered going to the most liberal university I can find, just to see what it's like. I think it would be amusing.
> The purpose of college education is
> to serve as a screening method for
> prospective employers.
Respectfully, kurt, I have to strongly disagree with this thought. The purpose of a college education is not and should not be to simply get a piece of paper making you hire-able. To allow this to be the case defaces the entirety of the academic process.
Now, are things the way you describe now? Yes. But to ascribe this to the proper fulfillment of its purpose -- that I take umbrage and offense to.
But Kurt, aren't there much easier and less expensive ways of doing that, ie certification tests and aptitude batteries, etc?
I have a BBA with a major in marketing; however, I learned more about marketing from the book "Guerilla Marketing", and I learned more about running a business from running a business than all the courses put together.
One of the problems that I observed with college courses when I was there was that the educational programs were based on past technology, not what was happening in the present.
(grin) Of course, perhaps that was because since I was paying my own way through college, I was going to a state college instead of an expensive private college. Maybe the computer and science courses there were more cutting edge.
I would like to add that I'm dismayed by "college graduates" that cannot speak in coherent sentences, send an E-mail without spelling errors, or believe the increasingly ridiculous claims of college "educated" people that say we must cut our carbon output to zero before it is "too late". (Here's your Kool-Aid, people. See you in the next life. Y'all drink first.)
Swamp Woman, it is my observation that "dumbed-down" educational practises extend from K-12 all the way through undergraduate and graduate schools--at least in the "post-modern" disciplines such as the social sciences, philosophy, cultural anthropology, language studies, ethnic and gender studies, etc.
CO2 hysteria is simply one of many manifestations of how easy it is to fool mis-educated youth. I call them academically lobotomised, and psychologically neotenous.
We can hope that a more de-centralised approach to education--more immersed in the real world--will keep youth more grounded during the formative years.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home