|
|
 Originally Posted by samsonite2100
The decision to go to college is an inherently pragmatic one that assumes you'll be in a better financial spot for it afterwards...
I disagree. If you said that “most people in the U.S. today decide to attend college mainly because they expect future financial rewards” then I wouldn’t really have a problem with the statement. As is, your statement has a normative dimension - in isolating and elevating ‘pragmatism’ and in suggesting that it is essential, it suggests that ‘pragmatism’ should be the dominant, even the sole, criterion in all decision making around higher education.
You seem to be taking that as a given, so I invite you to examine your assumptions.
I propose that any free society’s system of education should ideally strike a balance between education as a means and education as an end. By contrast, totalitarian ecucation tends toward complete ‘pragmatism.’
In the U.S., community colleges and vocational schools were established to deliver instrumental/technical schooling. Land-grant (state) schools have struck various compromises throughout their zigzag history. For one, they are founded on religious traditions associated with liberal education; their missions shifted when they were charged by law (Morrill Act, 1862) with delivering utilitatarian education; skipping forward - there was a post-war resurgence of support for (and funding for) liberal education; over roughly the last 2 decades we’ve witnessed the convergence of factors as diverse as student demographics, economic trends and conservative cultural/political forces that have fostered an increased instrumentalism.
In the end, I think most people would agree that 4 year colleges and universities are supposed to be fulfilling the mission of educating young people for life as well as preparing workers for post-industrial employment.
By the same token, most students decide to attend college, and guide their selection of school, for reasons that combine these values of education as a means and education as an end.
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
Unless, of course, your family is rich and has a quarter million dollars laying around you can spend to have an "experience," or whatever.
College should be more than a training camp for post-industrial workers. That has little or nothing to do with relative wealth of prospective students and a lot to do with what it means to be educated. I'm not sure what the 2nd half of your statement means exactly. You seem to be trivializing certain aspects of education, such as trying out new modes of thought and action. Perhaps I should let you clarify before I try to take this apart. For now, I'll just say that trivialization is anathema to vibrant intellectual community - the hallmark of which is taking ideas seriously.
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
Also, the idea that going to an expensive school affords you a "quality education" you can't get elsewhere is patently ridiculous. Almost all American universities are grade-inflated diploma factories at this point, particularly the expensive ones. You can get a good education anywhere--it all depends on the student.
I didn’t say that the most expensive schools deliver the best education. I didn’t say that the price of a school correlates to the quality of education. I wouldn’t even say that the ranking or reputation of a school guarantees a quality education.
I really don’t know what is meant by the statement “you can get a good education anywhere.” I think you’d agree that some schools are better than others. There are an awful lot of factors that distinguish schools, and we can talk about those if you want. Let's just not pretend that because nothing is ideal, everything is the same.
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
Well, if you're throwing the utility calculator out the window, screw college and the morons you'll be surrounded by there, get out into the real world and do some interesting stuff.
I have a lot of respect for people who decide to go do interesting stuff.
|
Anyone willing to stake me 40k?
).
Reply With Quote
