Something to make you feel better
 

I haven't been able to check into the forums for a while because of college, the holidays, and stuff. But, since I just found out I failed out of my current college, I'll be able to stop by a lot more often. My mom tried comforting me with this article, which is very informative and changed my views on sending kids away for education. I encourage everyone to read it.





GOOD NEWS FOR PARENTS EVERYWHERE: You're not required to send your kids
away to college when they turn eighteen!
By JOHN O. ANDERSEN
December 19, 2002





As I finished a carpet cleaning job the other night, the customer confessed
how much she missed her two children: one who is eighteen and the other
twenty. They are both away at college. She said they grew up too fast; once
they got to high school, the time disappeared, and before she knew it, they
were gone.


I wondered what it is about our culture that makes us think it's so
necessary to automatically send our kids away to college when they turn
eighteen. And I think there really isn't a logical answer.


Could it be nothing more than just another expensive "keep up with the
Joneses" vanity trip? Without a doubt, parents do get lots of social
mileage out of being able to brag about their daughter who is "studying
back East," or their son at Stanford.


Could the ability to afford to send your kid away to college be the main
point of actually doing it? Could it simply be a tangible demonstration of
your "success;" something akin to buying an SUV which is capable of
off-road driving, but never actually using it for that purpose? Appearance
over substance?


I wonder.


Most people who are familiar with college will admit (in their quiet
moments) that the quality of teaching is very poor at many vaunted and
pricey institutions. And those who know will also acknowledge that local
community colleges (long thought of as the domain of the less-ambitious and
"poor") are, as a rule, filled with great teachers. And in a further
disclosure of the truth, many will privately admit that the most important
learning they ever had (the stuff that transformed their lives) was
actually outside of institutional walls, on-the-job, and in everyday life.


So in light of these facts, why is it then that more young people can't be
allowed to stay home after the age of eighteen, and attend a community
college, learn a trade, or get a job? Why the imperative for a high-priced
parent-financed four year university stint?


Perhaps a big part of the absence of logical thinking on this issue is the
fact that far too many people have allowed themselves to be duped about
college. On the whole, our society accepts college as a necessity for
practically every adult. We've accepted brainwashing on a mass scale.


So in an effort to deprogram our minds, and start thinking rationally
again, let us repeat aloud the following sentence three times:


COLLEGE IS A BUSINESS, AND STUDENTS ARE THE CUSTOMERS
COLLEGE IS A BUSINESS, AND STUDENTS ARE THE CUSTOMERS
COLLEGE IS A BUSINESS, AND STUDENTS ARE THE CUSTOMERS


We simply need to stop looking at college like we do our electric bill, or
water bill. It's not a public utility. It's an overpriced luxury that, as a
rule, annually increases in price faster than inflation. College is a
status booster. When everyone clamors for it, this is more a demonstration
of lemming-like behavior than collective wisdom. Contrary to popular myth,
colleges are NOT the fountain of all knowledge!


Life experiences, meeting lots of people, using libraries, and quiet
reflection do a much better job at a fraction of the cost.


But, you claim, "I need to send my kid away so he can become independent,
and get a job someday."


Come now, can we really claim that sending them away to college, and
financing their entire scene is teaching them true independence? Yeah, it
may be the appearance of independence, but as long as they're financially
dependent on Daddy and Mommy, they're not independent, as much as we and
they would like to pretend otherwise.


And getting a job is far more a factor of how hard a kid is willing to
work, and whether or not he has street smarts, than where he went to
college. We all know that college does not hold the patent on those two
qualities.


So why not apply some much overdue logic to this situation instead of just
following the safety of the herd? Why not focus on equipping our children
with real life skills instead of sending them away on a four year all
expense paid vacation?


For instance, what's so bad about getting them started on a trade while
still teenagers? They'll be able to support themselves sooner than other
kids, and if they later choose college as a stepping stone to something
else, they'll be making a much more informed choice than those kids who've
been sheltered from work, and the world of trades, and only have popular
opinion to go on.


And why not reclaim (from the ruthless taskmaster of mainstream opinion)
control over our family life? We needn't succumb to peer pressure to split
us up when Madison turns eighteen. Let the kids stay home, and bloom where
they're planted. You can still vacation together. You can still sit down to
dinner together every evening. Parents can still be cool, and relevant to
their kids. Just because society says we can't doesn't mean we have to
follow suit.


Going to college is no longer the "hero's journey"--as if it ever was. More
accurately, it has become the "lemming's journey." Sure, the "hero" can go
to college, but that experience won't likely be life-defining. It will
likely be incidental. The hero stuff comes in when a person makes her own
way; walks into the unknown; parts from the safe, mainstream path.


In a nutshell, we aren't required to be clones who just do what everyone
else does. We can hold on to the things that matter. We can be independent
thinking individuals. We can dare to be different. And instead of
automatically feeding the ravenous higher education industry, we can
encourage our children to take a wiser, more practical path.


The decision is ours.

Oh trust me, I've known this all along, that's why I refused to go to college and why my mom didn't mind. Untill college becomes a publicaly accesible thing to everyone and anyone, it is just an elaborate ploy by the coporate fatcats. That's why it angers me so when the democrats say "we'll lower college tuition!" why not revoke it all together and turn it into a public school-house? Why? Because they're liars and hypocrites. Republicans are too. But far too often do democrats make themselves out to be "the goodguys". And they so aren't..

But there are however certain jobs that I just feel more comfortable people performing knowing they have received a proper education in the matter, like surgeons and therapists and such.

However there are also certain jobs that I feel are best suited for the experienced than the educated like architechture and engineering and hydrolics specialists. And in your case, you wanted to write for a newspaper and such, right Bob? That line of work is much better done with experience rather than knowledge.

Bah, the whole educational system in this country is out of whack. You spend 12 years, two thirds of your life up to that point, going to school everyday, and for what? A piece of paper that is absolutely worthless. A high school diploma will get you a job frying stuff and that's about it.

And no, Cheerful Coffin, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will do anything to do away or even realistically reduce college tuition fees because it's money in their pockets. Anyone that holds an office in this country does so because of the money they were given to get there, most of which given by major corporations, and the colleges are no different.

I ask you, why are college textbooks far and away more expensive than any other books on Earth? Because you have to have them. Sure, you can seel them back for a slim fraction of the price at the end of the semester, but it still doesn't change the fact that a huge portion of what you're paying for higher education goes into a collection of tomes that you probably won't even keep. Go to a community college and you'll pay more for books than your tuition.

The whole system needs to be reworked. High schools need to be eliminated and replaced by publicly funded universities. Elementary and middle school can be replaced by home schooling systems for a fraction of the cost. A simple knowledge of American history reveals that the public school system was implemented in this country not to educate children, but to adjust them to operating on a set schedule during the industrial revolution, so that they could wake up and work at the factories instead of on the farm. This institution is outdated and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Anyway, that's my rant. Um.... vote for me?

I totally agree with you POS, you know, I considerd (it's actually very easy to do this..) making my own independant party, I was going to call it The Satan Party. (I worship the devil.) And at a politics forum gave the Satan party's stances and agenda.

Alot of liberals said it sounded like neo-conservatism wrappedup in a new name to try and appeal to young angst teenagers..
And a couple of conservatives commented on it being a socialist cult with no backup plan if some unexpected turn go's wrong. (Ironicaly the conservatives were more dead on lol..)

The school system in just about any country is totally screwed up. Did you know that in canada(and this was worked out by the honors calculus class at SFU in b.c), if instead of charging people to go to college, the government paid for every student that wanted to go, the government would actually come out better in the end than they are right now.

I'll go weep for my nation right now.

Oh and...
I would totally vote for you... if i lived in the same country.

Allow me to place my own opinion here.

Education was never meant to be done inside school. Or a college. Education should be an active process. It is much easier to learn if student's seek out knowledge themselves, rather than haveing their hand held by a teacher. Of course at first that has to be done, but during high school and definately college the student should take an active step toward learning what needs to be learned.

If in college the student should seek out knowledge, then what is the point of the professors? The professors aren't surpossed to be teachers, they are merely there to evaluate your intelligence and clarity, ability, etc. That brings up what is the point of college. College is meant to evaluate your ability in certain areas of study, which especially in complicated fields is more important than being a hard worker.

So college is really only necesary if you need something to say 'I can do this' to the people giving you a job. The reason it is given such esteem is because it does say to employers 'this person is 'certified' (if I may use that wording) to do so and so.'

Is this a flawed system? Yes, mainly because this 'certifacation' takes more effort and money to get than what should be necesary.

I beleive that the elementary education system is really a joke. Even in a private school my education was worthless in many aspects. I think that if the teachers left out alot of useless things for us to learn we could have learned everything we needed to know for high school in about four years.

I go to a private high school now(It's the thing in St.Louis) and I find much of the things I learn very usefull to the understanding of our world. I don't know if this is different than many public schools so could someone fill me in if they have experience in them?
As for my high school, I think it helps me become a well rounded individual.

I agree, however that college asks for too much money and doesn't seem to do much more than hand the student material that is readily available in the main stream.

This brings me to another incite. Why does a college degree mean so much to buisness people if the person self-taught himself/ herself with knowledge of a specific field?
If it's because of trust, then how come you can do very poorly or just be good at taking tests, and get a diploma?

I think that these degrees may be good, but they are often overrated.
[Edit: Wizard has a good point. Let me elaborate on what he has said so far. What if you studied on your own with a guideline and a certain number of hours of working under a trained proffesional in the field. And from that a professor would physically test every aspect of the person one on one? That may be stretching it, but there's a good solution.]

The only reason I went is because I'm gettin it all payed for by the gub'ment. (suckers). Over here, University isn't even a business- it's an excuse to drink like a fish for three years. Not sure how it is at your end, but here students are seen as the scum of the country. But hey, at least we don't have frat boys.

I work two days a week year-round as a dishwasher and food prep in a low-end hotel/restaurant/resort, and when the university gives me my shiny piece of paper, I'll be in a surplus, having never taken out a loan.

University is a place of knowledge, and while many (almost all) students look at it as a time to get drunk and party, this is argueable in my region/program. In fact, most of the people in my program are crazy people that like Star Trek and make funny noises for no reason, but we learn a lot of stuff. Useless? Go to the university library, you could build a civilization out of the knowledge there. And then you could build the weapons to destroy said civilization.

*shrug* Expensive my arse, Canada rocks (Ontario has a tuition freeze in effect right now, and it's DIRT cheap to go to university).

...the counterargument is that college's purpose is not to prepare you for a job, but to teach you how to actually think, how to take an idea apart and poke the squishy bits until they stop being squishy. (and incidentally to fulfill the whole ancient tribal bit of suddenly dumping a whole lot of independence on your kid and seeing what happens.)

The tradeskill argument is a fine one, *if* you think that your average kid knows what he/she wants to do with their life that early. The US system ends up giving kids a whole bunch of information they'll never need to know, but they think it'll be nice for them to have some understanding of. I find history interesting, but I don't think it's critical knowledge. I find biology fascinating (hell, I'm a bio major) but your average kid is never going to need to know about it. Calculus? Hell no. Basic algebra's probably as far as anyone needs to ever go. English classes... well... half of me says they can be safely discarded, and the other half says that you need to give them some kind of immersion in what culture is.

Homeschooling ideas... well, the problem is that then you don't have that most critical of things, the lunch/recess complex. At the risk of quoting South Park, you can't teach social skills in homeschooling.

On a quasi-irrelevant note, though: Yeah, possibly the most pathetic thing at my beloved Northwestern University are the journalism majors. I'm sorry, guys, but you will learn JACK without actual journalism experience, no matter how 'immersive' the course is.

Also, since all high school does anymore is prepare you for college, and NOT prepare you for the working world, then we've all got sucsessful careers as squishy thing pokers ahead of us, don't we?

I'm inclined to agree with the 'college= teh suck' reasoning. I plan on never darkening the doorsteps of any university, and moving up in my company regardless.

What's with all the railing on scheduled education, too? Let's face it; home schooling wouldn't work without supervision. And supervision would thusly make it the same as a "formal" education. The reason it wouldn't work is every parent with kids would basically be forced to teach them at least 8 months out of the year, and many of them either can't be bothered or have to work to support the families.

Let's not forget the inherent want for freedom that children exhibit. It would be a lot more difficult to make a kid behave if he were at home rather than in a school with authority figures and "the principal".

As far as making colleges free, they never will be. The only way that's going to 'happen' is if governments entirely fund colleges, which then comes back as taxes anyways, negating the savings really. I do believe they should be less expensive, as they are nothing short of extoritionist now, but I do also believe that one has to be reasonable. Doing away with formal education, even revamping it entirely, whatever, isn't practical. It quite frankly won't work, it's too drastic. There's too much left up to chance. In the society most countries in the world now experience there's too much in the way for an unstructured learning environment.

I do rather like the "do away with the myth of a college degree" thing though. A piece of paper rarely makes someone more qualified for something unless it's a medical practice, if you ask me.

Of course home schooling wouldn't work without supervision, but parents are supposed to supervise their kids anyway. And newer technologies are making homeschooling easier on working parents through internet-based curriculums. Essentially, you're taking the "go to this place for 8 hours and sit there" aspect out of the equation and the kids are learning everything through their homework. I know families that use this method and it's very effective.

As to the argument that you can't learn social skills in homeschooling, that's a load of crap. If parents actually took the time to get their kids involved in other activities outside the house with kids their own age, then they would learn plenty of social skills. Honestly, what sort of behavior does one learn in high school. As someone who was on every extreme of the social spectrum in his high school experience, I can assure you that anything one would learn in that arena in a public school setting is complete garbage. As ridiculously as it was portrayed, "Heathers" actually isn't that far off from a real life high school experience.

And finally, I'm of the opinion that you SHOULD go to college, as we in the US of A have determinded that it is the only part of your education that matters. My argument is that it should be publicly funded, the necessary money being taken away from the archaic K-12 system that earns you the educational background to ask such daring questions as, "Would you like fries with that?"

I didn't say anything about social skills, yo. Just for reference. Society does not mean social skills.

Also imagine the deadbeat parents? The people who don't have internet yet? I'm not trying to take you down, just an undertaking of this enormity would be vastly more expensive than the current system and we probably wouldn't see benefits on a wide scale for a long time. Maybe the K-12 system is archaic but in my opinion it would be better to update that somehow rather than trust homeschooling. Most families have to have both parents working these days which leaves nobody to supervise the schooling, and when there's nobody supervising you (I say this as I, too, was a kid once) a small child is much more likely to play trucks and G.I. Joes than bury his nose in a textbook.

Actually, the social skills thing wasn't in response to you, Shiney. Other people had brought it up. Xal, most notably.

And it's a lot cheaper to fund computers and internet for families than it is to build schools and employ people to work in them. The inherant problem in this, of course, is that a lot of elementary, middle, and high school teachers would find themselves out of work, but what's to stop them from becoming college professors? Or private school teachers, for that matter. Clearly, the majority of public school teachers aren't getting it done (be it for any reasons, many of which are no fault of theirs). Until recently, I lived in a town in California called Redding, where at the local community college, the bulk of students were having to be taught how to read before they could even move on to the college level curriculum. Don't get me wrong, Redding is not exactly populated with America's best and brightest, but if you come out of 13 grades of public school without having learned something as basic as literacy, then there is clearly something wrong with the system. If there is a way to upgrade and imporve our current system, I'm all for it, but so far nobody's been able to come up with and implement a way to do it. Bush has his "No Child Left Behind" Act, which is at least an idea, but then they cut the funding out from under it and made it completely useless. Regardless of the solution, a near-complete overhaul is in order. I'm just looking at it as I would were I to have kids, and I wouldn't trust the current system as far as I could throw it.

http://www.back2college.com/library/faq.htm

Nope. It's still a good idea to go to college. You can command a decent salary and benefits. Benefits are more and more important these days because social security and all that jazz is going down the toilet. You want to be secure in a profitable job that will take care of you and your family (should you have one) when you have medical issues. If you don't get a college degree you are basically enlisting yourself to a life of wage-slavery. Of course there are exceptions and there are people who have made more money than a small country's GDP, but they are few and far between.

I look at a college degree as an insurance policy, more than anything. I am not sure if I even want to use my degree when I graduate, but I will always have it. Even if I don't enter my particular field, having a B.A. will open up a lot of opportunities to work for the government and/or military. You can do more as a college graduate.

As for whether "brand-name" schools are better than community schools, I really can't say. I go to a state university and I would rate it as better than average, but what do I have to compare it to?

I never said that it didn't. Or maybe I did, but that was not what I intended. Here's the thing, a job is surpossed to make you a functional member of society. With everyone working together, we get great things accomplished by working together. For a lot of jobs, even though it doesn't seem like it, learning how to think is very important.

So in other words, learning to think means your qualified for a lot of jobs. And jobs make the world go round. So you need to learn to think to make the world go round.

HOWEVER, some people already know how to think. These people are still required to go to college to be 'certified' for the job. There's the rub, sometimes college is unnecesary and we make it necesary.

And I don't think I said don't go to college.

To which I have to add another detail. College provides you with resources to learn, most importantly a proffesseur, who directs you on how to think and go about your subject. Keep in mind that he is not a teacher, but a director.

Oh, and a college proffesseur can be talked to if you don't go to that college, so colleges are shouldn't be necesary, but they are. That was what I tried, and failed, to get across last time.

Brand-name schools have better professors. Although usually good professors are bad teachers, so there may be truth in the article.

Also, a teacher is someone who, well, teaches you things. He teaches the brunt of material and gives you hard information. However, a professeur is surposed to refine the way you think, but the trick is you should already know the information. Also based on his expertise he evaluates you and your thinking. And your knowledge. A very fine line, and I find it hard to convey the difference at the moment. Note that this is the definition I use. I really don't care about real world definitions of this at the moment.

The generalizations and general lack of proof behind your broadly vitriolic statements cause me a mixture of rage and pity. I would say that your lack of a college education is blatantly apparent, but I have met too many intelligent people who do not have one. If I said "your vaguely paranoid, overreaching, and outright incorrect post is a result of your refusal to open your ridiculously closed mind and LEARN something at college", that would be a generalization. For emphasis, generalizations are BAD! On the other hand, you do have a ridiculously closed mind, and your post does fit the description, yet I suspect a deeper reason than "no college" for the imbecilic and pueric quality of this post.

Easy there, Drangonsbane.

Adamark brings up a good point, however the 'safety' of a college degree is based at least in part on the misconception that said degree ensures proper skill level and 'deservedness' of benefits for any job in question.

It's like paying the mob for 'protection' that you didn't need in the first place.

Excepting extremely senstive fields, like the medical field, or scientific research, IMO there's almost no job you can't "succeed" (re: do well) at if you applied yourself to your primary education. I think people underestimate grasping math and reading well - screw the buisness degree if they can't add or talk in front of a group, eh?

There seems to be a myth surrounding the power of a college/university degree, If you don't go to college - you'll die sad, poor, and alone. It's something spread subliminally all the time by teachers, councilers, and others of that ilk - those who spend time talking about "my future" after I graduate. From basically grade 7 - it was clear that they were trying to put pressure on us to consider only college/university as a reasonable path to the future.

It's only in the very late grades, around the time that we've had all this drilled in our heads that they start mentioning workplace alternatives - apprenticeship programs, workplace internship and alternative education sources. It's somewhat infuriating when this all comes to light after you've been brainwashed into this dream of the cathedrals of education that university and colleges come to represent. It's coming to the point that the college you go to is directly intertwined with your self worth - and that's distressing.

Colleges and university educations aren't a negative obviously - it's the feeling of urgency and necassity in attaining one which annoys me.

Given the option, I probably wouldn't go to college. There's far too much that I really don't want to learn, because it's required of me. Why would i possibly be taught something I 'have' to learn, to graduate?

I want to write. I don't need to accomplish math, history, religion, etc etc etc to do it.

But, I will. Though I don't want to, it's pretty neccesary, not just for it's 'keep up with the status quo' factor, but because it actually is helpful, not just overpriced.

/rant.

I'm tired...

What I find interesting is that I have seen only two arguments on why or why not to go to so-called higher education that weren't explicity tied in with making more money.

1)They teach you how to think
2)Social interaction

So here's a big kick in the genitals with a scythe - who cares about money? Honestly, is it really so important to everyone here to get a high paying job? Our society is based around an axiom of wealth = success and is really quite sickening. So if you only go to high school, end up serving fries your whole life you are a failure? What if you want nothing more than to sit on your ass and watch TV and in order to maintain food and house you serve fries? Though I disagree with the ultimate goal, who's to say that this person isn't succeeding? You don't NEED a good job, you don't NEED financial security because - getting right down to it - there's no such thing whatsoever.

We will all lose our jobs at the time of death. Period. No money saved will help you, no 401k, no insurance policy, no mutual fund, nothing. Call it pessimistic, it's truth people don't look at. Why spend your whole life straining for something you won't keep? Why not try for a simple life that - even if you don't believe in anything spiritual - is comfortable? Make enough to live and get some inner peace.

As for the other reasons, I would agree that college tries to teach you to think, but they do so in a wrong way. Processes that convince someone that they are the ultimate judge of hings is wrong - we are imperfect and not one human can be said to be an ultimate judge, so why think that we should rely on our own reasoning? I won't get too far into that, however - dangerous topic and sidetracking from this one.

As for social interaction, there may be less at a home school, but that suits me fine. I really don't want my children anywhere near today's society. Social interaction mean picking up the habits of that society, and the society of the modern world is hellish. Let them interact with those who know and are striving for the goal of life.

Other than that, don' go to college, but be student. I study every day, not because I want a grade or a job, but because I want to learn. I go to class and take notes. I do homework diligently. It's a matter of conscious endeavor and desire. You want to be a brain surgeon? Hang ou with those who know it and ask them to teach it to you. They force you to pay - is it worth that much money to be a brain surgeon for you? Then you'll pay.

The real kicker that I'm surprised you didn't bring up. College, yes, allows this for you, but it is unnecesary. You learn best if you do a voluntary independant study, or better if you get a group to learn. The only reason colleges are there is so that they make sure professors are periodically evaluating you. However, we could all learn what we needed to know without going to college. In the 8th grade, I talked to a college professor about the science fair. I'm sure that if I can do that in 8th grade, anyone at the age of 18 could do it themselves.

Actually, something only just struck me. By making all of this stuff so open to students, we are minimizing their independance. A student would have to be independant to search for professors or knowledgable people in the area to get first-hand evaluation of skills. Same thing with doing group or independant study. Without teachers and professors people would need to learn how to find information, etc. Really, it would be better to have schools in general be dismantled and completely recreate the system. This is, of course assuming that kids will do their work and try to learn. That's a perfect world. Realistically, we should definately have less high school and limited college.

Oh and socail interaction, how can THAT be an argument to go to college, unless you really don't get out enough. And for that, you join the NPF.

Oh, and Dusanadus is kind of right. However, it's a bit deeper than that. The origins as I see them, you got more money the more useful to society you were. Therefore, the allure of money made you strive to be useful to society. Then the system was corrupted to include people who stole, wether white-collar or not, people who got money for no skills what so ever and just looking good (too many acters), and more things besides. To continue onward would be to seriously derail from this topic, but to put it bluntly there was a purpose to holding the allure of money to people. At one time. Now the system is seriously screwed up.

I would agree with this actually. Ever since the loss of everything I consider true wealth (land, precious metals, and valuable goods) was denied the status of tradeworthy (try buying an iPod with a deed, a hunk of silver, or a microwave - no no, first get money for those things, THEN buy your iPod), money was a symbol of one's worth to the nation. The only problem with this, is that our nation has no idea what should be considered having worth. We have plenty of ways to enjoy our senses, we have plenty of ways to grow economically, we even have plenty of ways to engage in religious systems, but what we are missing is an ultimate goal that all of these things should be leading to. While trying to avoid the taboo subjects, I am trying to get at the fact that currently our nation sees the GDP as the best evalutation of whether or not this country is doing well. Once you have all the money - what are you going to buy with it? There needs to be a direction. If a miracle happens and suddenly nobody has to wrok ever and everyone's material needs are met - then what? Where do you go? There's no clue from anyone with a position of authority - THAT's the problem with the system.

It is a bit of a con job, isn't it?

Especially considering white-collar workers are getting just as shafted as the blue collar lads employment-wise, these days.

Mostly it only serves to artifically improve the economic outlook by delaying people's entrance into the job market, and to move the burden of employee selection, accreditation and training from the employer to the worker.

...

Really, you want absolute guaranteed job security, there's two fields for you.

Plumbing, and mortuary.

The two things people will pay any amount of money not to have to deal with themselves.

Actually the day isn't too long past that there was such a thing as a 'free' - ie taxpayer-funded - higher education. CUNY in New York was tuition-free until the mid 70's, and a number of public universities have it written into their charters (University of California and U of Missouri systems, offhand) that residents aren't to be charged tuition, though such institution did charge nominal educational 'fees' which were on the order of a few hundred dollars a year up until, again, the mid-70s, when those fees served as the loophole through which were forced the same ballooning individual costs as were dropped upon students across the higher-educational spectrum.

Actually I got quite the opposite out of my college education. Mac Hall had a relatively accurate description of the process a while back. It really was a humbling moment.

I mean honestly, you make it sound like kids coming out of high school need to be taught to think that they know everything.

I hate studying, and if there was no forced evaluation I would probably fail every course or subject I ever pursued. It's not that I don't like what I study, I do quite a bit, I just enjoy sitting on my ass and playing video games and hanging out with friends quite a bit more.

Thanks to the evil, misguided university, I give them my money as a relatively good safety deposit to make sure I do the work they give me, so I can have my piece of paper in a few years.

Sure, serve fries your entire life, we do need people to do that (until robots enter the scene more expansively). However, right now I want to be a high school teacher, and to do that, I need a university degree and a teacher's degree.

I disagree to the point that university somehow teaches you to think in the wrong way, because I do not agree with whatever spiritual or religious undertones caused the making of said point. The more courses I take that reinforce the scientific method (and due to silly electives, the philosophical method), the better I can approach any issue. To say I am doing so wrongly is opinionated, not fact. As imperfect humans, we don't really have the right to say university is teaching us to think wrong (cough).