We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Instapundit (Harvard Law grad) has often claimed that it is not the college education which is of value to employers. Rather, it signifes that the person is probably reasonably smart and reasonably diligent, so that filters out lots of people.
Of course, this does not apply so much to STEM students.
Because in order to get an engineering degree, you still need to demonstrate that you know how to calculate how far the beam will deflect under load, not just parrot back the professor's opinion of why the bam shouldn't be loaded in the first place.
another guy named Dan
College for all also delays maturity, implying that people marry later, if at all, with demographic consequences.
Isn't is a grave insult to get that wrong, either way? I'm not well edumedicated so I'm not sure.
As to the point, I recently came across this passage regarding the men of 1900 who laid the foundation for America of today. the "Robber Barons".
Naturally it was pleasant for successful businessmen to believe that these were, in fact, the first principles of economics. But, one might ask, hadn't they learned in the classroom that economics is just a little more complex than that?
To this question there are two answers. The first is that mighty few of the tycoons of 1900 had ever studied economics. Take, for instance, eight of the most successful of all: John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, and Baker, whom we have just mentioned; and also J. Pierpont Morgan, William Rockefeller, James Stillman, and H. H. Rogers. Of these eight, only Morgan had had anything approaching what we today would call a college education; he had spent two years at the University of Göttingen in Germany, where he had pretty certainly not studied anything that we would now classify as economics. And it is doubtful if even in the prime of life many of these men, or of their innumerable rivals and imitators, had much truck with economic science, or thought of professors of economics as anything but absurdly impractical theorists. A man who had come up in the world liked to describe himself as a graduate of the School of Hard Knocks. Education was all right in its way, and you sent your son to college if you could, if only because it was a good place to make useful contacts with the right people; but these college professors knew nothing about business, which was a battlefield for hard-shelled fighters. And anyhow the principles laid down by Ben Franklin, and somewhat foolishly simplified for boys by Horatio Alger, were fundamentally sound.
At the turn of the century there were, however, several hundred thousand Americans who had gone to college. Of these, a somewhat smaller number had gone to institutions so up-to-date as to include economics in the curriculum. And a still smaller number had actually studied the subject. What had they been taught about economic life?
--'The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950' (1952), Frederick Allen Lewis
Harvard and Yale should consider charging four years tuition and granting a degree to applicants instead of wasting all that time and money sucking the intelligence out of them. Think of the money they could save on salaries.
It's already been shown that Harvard freshmen know more than seniors.
When you discuss higher education in any form, you also have to discuss price. I'll give you an example: President Trump has said that solar panels are a stupid investment; they will never pay for themselves. And he's right. He went on to say that any investment needs to be carefully examined for its expected return.
On that note, a college degree must be examined on its potential ROI. A degree in black studies has no ROI. A degree in Aerospace Engineering has an excellent ROI.
There should be a published ROI figure for every degree, but there's not. That's because the crooks who dole-out student loans wouldn't be able to do any business. This is government malfeasance at its worst. In my opinion, all student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Young people were sold a bill of goods by a corrupt government.
If there were no student loans, prices would go way down; and ROI would go way up.
You do know about the higher ed bubble, right? This is crony business between higher ed and the government. Gotta keep the money coming in. If they can't put butts in the seats by traditional methods, or their politically correct directives lead them to replace deserving candidates with "disadvantaged" candidates, then who gets shafted? The tax payer. Who cares about ROI? When the government gets involved it becomes Too Big To Fail. Should the Higher Ed bubble burst, or delinquent accounts grow, of course the tax payer picks up the tab and that is where Congress needs to accept the blame. They signed up the tax payer for this stuff but they got their payback and left singing in the rain!
College is the only place that any actual education and learning can take place. HS is purely for socializing reasons, not for anything academic. The HS's have out-sourced that purpose to the colleges. Ergo, college is essential for anybody who wants to be "educated".
My fix would be to move the socialization idea down to the lower grades and make the last two years of HS about real education. Then fewer people would need college at all, or it could be a cheaper, two year program.