For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

[jeffrey]

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

"First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that's the system we have in place...

For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time - WSJ.com

[jIM_Ohio]

The article mentions using "certification" to qualify for a job. HMM.

I design software certification and training programs for a living. The idea has merit. But certification is based on skills and skills come from training.

I do agree a liberal arts degree is probably a waste of 4 years (I have an engineering degree). In addition 4 years for college is ambitious. My "senior" year took me 4 years (I had too much fun). College from start to degree took me 6 years and 9 months (I worked for the last 15 months straight though).

An educational world based on certification tests would be a better place in many ways, but the overarching benefit is that the line between college and noncollege competencies would be blurred. Hardly any jobs would still have the BA as a requirement for a shot at being hired. Opportunities would be wider and fairer, and the stigma of not having a BA would diminish.

A person would need training to learn the skills to pass the "certification". But a certification also (usually) implies experience. Meaning someone could not attend training classes then pass the certifications I design for a living. Unless they are a genius and maybe played on the computer in the classroom enough to hack at the software to troubleshoot it.

The idea of the article has merit. But the idealistic approach of the author is too far from the world I work in.

I might suggest making an associates the skill building portion, then work for cheap honing the skills, then using a certification test.

The true purpose of college is that an 18 year old is not mature enough to make risk-reward decisions effectively (especially men). Science has proven this part of brain does not fully develop until age 19 or 20. So college provides a person 4 years to be stupid (7 in my case) before joining the working world.

And I would not change much about my college past. Too much fund (at the expense of 84k).

[disneysteve]

I do agree a liberal arts degree is probably a waste of 4 years (I have an engineering degree). In addition 4 years for college is ambitious.

I typed a long response to this that disappeared when I hit send. Let me try to recreate it.

I disagree on both points.

I don't think you can ever say that any education is a waste. I have a BS in Biology from a liberal arts college. In addition to my science courses, I was required to take classes in English, foreign language, art, history, philosophy and more. Even though most of those things have no direct (or even indirect) connection to my chosen career, they certainly weren't a waste. They made be a better educated, well-rounded person. College isn't just about getting a job. It is about getting an education. I wouldn't want to be a doctor who knew nothing but science. I think the most interesting people are those who have varied interests and knowledge and I have always prided myself on knowing at least a little about a lot of different things. I credit my liberal arts education for much of that.

As for 4 years being an ambitious goal for college, 4 years always used to be the standard expectation. I remember people being teased and criticized for being on the "5-year plan" or more. Somehow, it has gradually become acceptable for students to take 5 or 6 or 7 or more years to earn a degree. I don't know why that has happened. Considering the rising cost of college, you would think people would want to finish as quickly as they can. We've already made it clear to our daughter that we expect college to be a 4-year endeavor.

[Daylily]

Interesting that the author touts the CPA exam because I believe that to even sit for the exam one must have a BA degree! I may be wrong on that but I don't think just anyone off the street who has self-studied for the exam can take it; I believe that a BA or a certain number of college credits are required.

I don't disagree with the idea of having certification exams but I really believe in the power of the foundations that a bachelor's degree provides. I'm not talking about an online degree either; I'm talking about a true bachelor's degree from a brick and mortar institution with face to face time with other students and professors. I'm an education junkie (one bachelor's and two master's). In the work place, I can tell a difference in those co-workers who have bachelor's degrees and those that don't.

[doctorS]

Just signed up on the site, great stuff going on here.

My 2 cents.

I did 5 years of undergrad at an expensive private institution in Philly (take a guess?) and it was not worth the bill I paid. In this day and age its required to have an undergrad degree to get a decent paying job for any company. Yes, you can go the certifications route and have those skills but you will never move up without a formal education.

If college is not for you , have no fear, owning your own business is the way to go. And if you are able to do something like and are successful, then what is the difference between you and a successful college grad? You just have a lot less debt andsome solid work experience.

Its a double edged sword but more often the college grads make out better.

The american education system is overpriced and is losing value every year in the knowledge that it is passing on to its students. Just my opinion but thought id share.

[geojen]

I typed a long response to this that disappeared when I hit send. Let me try to recreate it.

I disagree on both points.

I don't think you can ever say that any education is a waste. I have a BS in Biology from a liberal arts college. In addition to my science courses, I was required to take classes in English, foreign language, art, history, philosophy and more. Even though most of those things have no direct (or even indirect) connection to my chosen career, they certainly weren't a waste. They made be a better educated, well-rounded person. College isn't just about getting a job. It is about getting an education. I wouldn't want to be a doctor who knew nothing but science. I think the most interesting people are those who have varied interests and knowledge and I have always prided myself on knowing at least a little about a lot of different things. I credit my liberal arts education for much of that.

As for 4 years being an ambitious goal for college, 4 years always used to be the standard expectation. I remember people being teased and criticized for being on the "5-year plan" or more. Somehow, it has gradually become acceptable for students to take 5 or 6 or 7 or more years to earn a degree. I don't know why that has happened. Considering the rising cost of college, you would think people would want to finish as quickly as they can. We've already made it clear to our daughter that we expect college to be a 4-year endeavor.

Steve, I couldn't agree more. The really overlooked benefit of a liberal arts education is that you learn the MUCH NEEDED skill of critical thinking. If nothing else, you will leave your 4-year institution armed with this skill that will help you in every aspect of your life. Being able to determine whether the news article you just read, or the speech a candidate just gave, etc. was based on valid, logical reasoning and not spurious correlations and non sequiter rhetorical nonsense is a vital part of being a productive member of our society.

[jIM_Ohio]

Steve, I couldn't agree more. The really overlooked benefit of a liberal arts education is that you learn the MUCH NEEDED skill of critical thinking. If nothing else, you will leave your 4-year institution armed with this skill that will help you in every aspect of your life. Being able to determine whether the news article you just read, or the speech a candidate just gave, etc. was based on valid, logical reasoning and not spurious correlations and non sequiter rhetorical nonsense is a vital part of being a productive member of our society.

Liberal arts does not equal critical thinking.

Critical thinking can come from many different ways of learning. On the job training is the best form, having people skills will enhance critical thinking too.

But to tell me an english major has critical thinking because of their liberal arts degree tells me the poster who said that probably does not have full critical thinking power to begin with . Just kidding.

Critical thinking comes when a person learns to think through open ended problems. IMO engineering will have more open ended problems than most other degree chains... maybe only rivaled by doctor/medical training.

The argument above was "logic", or being able to read something and interpret it. I agree that is open ended and independant thinking. I took about 4 or 5 liberal arts classes in college and I have that skill (I can listen to a politician or read an article and discuss it). That is not critical thinking as I know it.

Critical thinking is about applying some good judgement to decisions without much research. The problems might be open ended or not.

I agree critical thinking is a needed part of education, but it's not the liberal arts degree which provided it.

I coach soccer and add critical thinking to much of the practice session. I give kids problems they need to solve as a group (some of problems are soccer related, some are not) to develop this level of thinking.

A college professor could instill this with various teaching techniques too.

I worked on projects with others in college which required organization, specialization and decision making- these all lead into critical thinking.

Liberal arts does not equal critical thinking- some of best decision makers around do not have a college education.

[sweeps]

There are a lot of intangible benefits of going to college that people tend to gloss over when doing a cost (or time)/benefit analysis.

Some of the things that you can't place a monetary value on:
- Lifelong friendships (and perhaps a future business partner or spouse)
- A lasting bond with other alumni (which often can provide an easy "in" on job interviews, meeting new people, sales calls, etc.)
- A chance to try out different skills and try out different career paths in a low-risk situation
- The ability to get some of the need to party out of one's system
- Demonstration to a future employer of the ability to have a long-term goal and complete it
- A chance to get exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking one may not get in their hometown/high school
I'm sure there are a slew of others....

[jIM_Ohio]

There are a lot of intangible benefits of going to college that people tend to gloss over when doing a cost (or time)/benefit analysis.

Some of the things that you can't place a monetary value on:
- Lifelong friendships (and perhaps a future business partner or spouse)
- A lasting bond with other alumni (which often can provide an easy "in" on job interviews, meeting new people, sales calls, etc.)
- A chance to try out different skills and try out different career paths in a low-risk situation
- The ability to get some of the need to party out of one's system
- Demonstration to a future employer of the ability to have a long-term goal and complete it
- A chance to get exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking one may not get in their hometown/high school
I'm sure there are a slew of others....

I agree with all of above. Most of what you learn in college is learned outside the classroom.

[Angio333]

I think that what seems to be an endless amount of prereqs and electives that a college requires is a waste of time, and money. Why did I have to take a college level art class to get a BA in Accounting? It is a simple answer....it made the college money. I would rather have used the money and time to take a class that I will actually use.

[PrincessPerky]

While I am all for education, I do not think requiring all workers to take a class in Greek art helps us as a nation.

Many people are capable of learning all sorts of art math, science, history, while learning how to do a job. Many others have their head so stuffed full of pop culture they have no room to fit in all the varied information 'liberal arts' can contain.

Should a fellow be forced not to go into accounting because they can't tell a Renoir from a Picasso? Not in my opinion.

Should I be forbidden from teaching children because I can't remember why we fought the war of 1812?

Do I deserve a raise because I aced French in school? I can't currently speak it, but hey I did pass all the tests.

Education is a wonderful thing, unfortunately schooling is not quite as special.

Reading from a book isn't anything like actually rebuilding a computer, or leading a child to reading, or getting venom out of a snake.

Not that I think colleges are a total waste, after all I know quite a few professional students who would be at a loss without the wonderful professors willing to expound on any old subject at length. We used to call them philosophers, but that doesn't pay well anymore.

[MonkeyMama]

As a CPA I have a few cents to add.

As a CPA I have always largely felt like the profession had it right. BUT I disagree with an exam being the be-all, end-all.

The model when I graduated in '99 was you pass the CPA exam, work your butt off with a wide variety of experience at a CPA firm, for pennies (more like an internship really). After 2 years of a broad range of relevant experience, you get your license, and then you can branch out wherever you want. Experience is audit because you get exposed to a wide range of areas, you get to glimpse the big picture, and you need critical skills to succeed. Once you are licensed you can go off and be a controller, go work in tax (starting at the bottom), or you may even go consult.

Since my degree was so cheap and the pay was so good, and though CPAs are often lumped with doctors/lawyers (though they really aren't on that level overall, as far as years of education or pay). It always struck me that a CPA was a million times cheaper to get and that job experience was far more important than education. My education cost about $15k, and was 4 years. & suddenly I am lumped with lawyers and doctors who went to school a million years and paid six figures for their educations? Mind boggling to me.

As such, I believe the traditional CPA model is something to really consider for other professions. I think they largely got it right, and I have always found it rather unique.

What happened though is CPAs got tired of the 2-years experience for licensing, and we were worked so hard, and treated so badly those 2 years, no one wanted to stay past 2 years. CPA firms are struggling and not enough accountants are graduating college. So we dropped the experience requirement. The result is anyone licensed in the last couple of years is not taken as seriously in the profession. Because most of them don't have the needed experience. They have even dumbed down the exam.

As far as the test. If you are good at tests, you'll do good on the test. How did I pass the test? I memorized a lot of old test questions. (The study courses are just books of old questions). I didn't particularly find the CPA exam to be very relative to my work. It was very broad and I memorized, and quickly forgot, a lot of crap I will never need. Most of the accounting and law modules were stuff I would never use. Though it was good to have broad exposure to (in college). Tax I use but I went off and audited for 2 years and the tax code completely changed in the interim.

The part I will agree is I actually took the audit module last, after I had audited a year. I barely studied and that one was a breeze. But audit was a much more narrow focus. Accounting and tax was more like, "Know everything about accounting and tax." As such, I don't think it was a very useful measure of knowledge. The profession limits itself then to people who are good at tests, which has its own issues. They are really fighting to get auditors to be really skeptical and think outside a checklist. This is the problem.

Anyway, just some observations since the author went the CPA angle.

Most states are nor requiring a Masters for CPAs now. They are slowly heading to more education/less experience. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But I think trying to just fit the paradigm more.

Interesting articles and the rest of you targeted a lot of the other issues.

[cptacek]

I went to a liberal arts college and got a 4.0 GPA as a math major (and the coursework for a physics minor, but I didn't declare I wanted the minor). The history, english, etc classes were just breaks from the hard classes for me. Except I had to take a fine arts class (I took ceramics, and let me tell you, those weren't "fine art") at the end of my senior year and I was so worried that would be my only "B". I mean, I took "Sociology of sports" for god's sake. What is the point of that except 3 easy hours? I also was on track for an education degree (so I could teach high school math if I wanted to) and I had to take "children's literature". That was worth it? I had to reread book I had already read?

A liberal arts degree didn't teach me critical thinking skills. I already had those and like I said, the history/english classes were just fluff classes I could attend, read the stuff, and coast through to give me a break from the hard stuff.

I agree that not everyone should go to college. My DH would have wasted his time and money at college and would have dropped out. He went to a technical school and got his welding certificate, which let me tell you, is a HUGE plus on the farm. I think we are setting some people up for failure by pressuring them to go to college instead of trade school to be a mechanic, electrician, welder, carpenter, etc., where they would excel and be able to make a good living. Not everyone wants a white collar job, but by pressuring them to go to college, they don't get their degree and they don't go to technical school, so instead of a blue collar job, they are gas station attendants.

[DebbieL]

Steve, I couldn't agree more. The really overlooked benefit of a liberal arts education is that you learn the MUCH NEEDED skill of critical thinking. If nothing else, you will leave your 4-year institution armed with this skill that will help you in every aspect of your life. Being able to determine whether the news article you just read, or the speech a candidate just gave, etc. was based on valid, logical reasoning and not spurious correlations and non sequiter rhetorical nonsense is a vital part of being a productive member of our society.

I could do all that before I had left high school. I can't see spending money on a liberal arts degree for that purpose. I'm a business major (accounting). When my daughter goes to college, I want her to take a program that will lead to a well paid career (as well as something she enjoys). Anything else, IMO, is a bit of a waste of time/money.

[disneysteve]

As a CPA I have always largely felt like the profession had it right. BUT I disagree with an exam being the be-all, end-all.

As a physician, I would say the same about a doctor being board-certified. Many doctors tout that they are board-certified. Many insurance companies advertise what percentage of their physician panels are board-certified. Guess what? It doesn't mean much of anything. It just means the doctor managed to pass an exam and paid a ridiculous fee to the certifying organization for the privilege of taking that exam. It in no way indicates the quality or skill of the physician. Did I suddenly become a better doctor when I got certified? Of course not. If I chose to stop paying the annual fee to maintain my certification, would I suddenly become incompetent? Of course not. I know doctors who dropped their certification due to the annual cost. They are still great doctors, same as before. Titles are just titles. They don't necessarily correlate with skill or competence.