What’s the Point of College?

 

Too many people are going to college. In response, colleges have trivialized their curricula, introducing vacuous and pointless programs like Gender Studies, Popular Culture, and Journalism. No one needs to major in these things, and the world isn’t made a better place because these majors exist.

The reality is that only a minority of us are really equipped to think deeply about abstract things. The rest of us would be better served, would be better providers and better people if we simply learned to do something of value and to do it well. Then college could do what college was originally intended to do: teach people complex ideas that require a depth of study and commitment beyond what most people are interested in pursuing.

Instead, college has dumbed itself down to provide something for everyone, while growing ever more expensive and ever less useful.

Published in Education
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 146 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Children are an intrinsic good, because people are an intrinsic good.

    Why?

    It’s axiomatic, Henry.

    Well I question your axioms so there!

    And that’s your right, Henry. I’m a humanist in the broad sense, and the axiomatic assumption of the positive worth of a human life is, at least for me, part of that. That doesn’t mean that I believe that every human will make a net positive contribution to the world: that’s pretty obviously not true. But my assumption, in each instance — and I’ll confess that there’s some optimism being expressed here — is that every human begins with that potential. Our challenge is to create the conditions that incline more and more people toward realizing that potential.

    There are certain topics that people don’t have these concepts upfront in their minds and it agitates the hell out of me. lol

    • #121
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is an excellent thread about college loans. 

     

     

    Trust me, everything is about inflation, not productivity. That priority will never change until there is a collapse.

    • #122
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Children are an intrinsic good, because people are an intrinsic good.

    Why?

    It’s axiomatic, Henry.

    Well I question your axioms so there!

    You can’t question axioms – that’s one of the first axioms. 

    • #123
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    deleted

    • #124
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    This is an excellent thread about college loans.

     

     

    Trust me, everything is about inflation, not productivity. That priority will never change until there is a collapse.

    It’s not that the government would have to make fewer loans; it’s that there would be disparate impact, which the feds couldn’t stand.

    • #125
  6. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of liberty. This article is very short.

     

     

     

     

     

    I can probably make the head shots Gordon Liddy advised.

    • #126
  7. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of liberty. This article is very short.

     

     

     

     

     

    I can probably make the head shots Gordon Liddy advised.

    I put that on the wrong thread.

     

    • #127
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    https://ricochet.com/944459/another-example-of-how-the-libertarian-utopia-is-a-fantasy/comment-page-9/#comment-5425382

     

     

    • #128
  9. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    TBA (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Children are an intrinsic good, because people are an intrinsic good.

    Why?

    It’s axiomatic, Henry.

    Well I question your axioms so there!

    You can’t question axioms – that’s one of the first axioms.

    Oh, really?!

     – – – – – – – –

    TAGS: Humor, attempts at.

    • #129
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    Oh, really?!

    No, not at all.  I mean Yes.  I mean… accept everything.  That’s the essence and beauty of true tolerance and diversity.

    (This may be a humorous remark.)

    • #130
  11. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Meanwhile, apparently Biden has a plan to give illegal immigrants college grants.  Since they are ineligible to receive student loans, he wants to give illegal immigrants a tuition-free education where they are expressly forbidden to ever pay the money back.  

    You can’t make this up.

     

    • #131
  12. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Meanwhile, apparently Biden has a plan to give illegal immigrants college grants. Since they are ineligible to receive student loans, he wants to give illegal immigrants a tuition-free education where they are expressly forbidden to ever pay the money back.

    You can’t make this up.

     

    Well we can’t want the illegals thinking America is a good place now would we?

    • #132
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Meanwhile, apparently Biden has a plan to give illegal immigrants college grants. Since they are ineligible to receive student loans, he wants to give illegal immigrants a tuition-free education where they are expressly forbidden to ever pay the money back.

    You can’t make this up.

     

    Well we can’t want the illegals thinking America is a good place now would we?

    It might be “genius” if Biden is figuring that once they are taught that America is awful, they’ll go back home, but that would be second-level thinking and there’s no evidence that Biden is capable of even first-level thinking.

    • #133
  14. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Meanwhile, apparently Biden has a plan to give illegal immigrants college grants. Since they are ineligible to receive student loans, he wants to give illegal immigrants a tuition-free education where they are expressly forbidden to ever pay the money back.

    You can’t make this up.

     

    Well we can’t want the illegals thinking America is a good place now would we?

    It might be “genius” if Biden is figuring that once they are taught that America is awful, they’ll go back home, but that would be second-level thinking and there’s no evidence that Biden is capable of even first-level thinking.

    That’s a good Babylon Bee article.

    • #134
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    Unless I was going for a stem degree, I could not justifying paying a lot of money BA that leaves you less prepared for the job market when when you started

     

     

    Even STEM majors don’t always get a job in their area of study.  Even though I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Nuclear Engineering (and a PhD in Submarines), I did a couple of stints as an Environmental Engineer and Mechanical Engineer.  I’d advise flexibility no matter what the field . . .

    • #135
  16. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Stad (View Comment):

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    Unless I was going for a stem degree, I could not justifying paying a lot of money BA that leaves you less prepared for the job market when when you started

     

     

    Even STEM majors don’t always get a job in their area of study. Even though I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Nuclear Engineering (and a PhD  in Submarines), I did a couple of stints as an Environmental Engineer and Mechanical Engineer. I’d advise flexibility no matter what the field . . .

    Agree totally. 

    I got a STEM degree and I work part-time in a hardware store. 

    Now, there are two aisles for things used by electricians, but helping them find those products is not really in my area of study, Electrical Engineering, not like in in.  In fact, I decided to specialize in Plumbing.  I got interested when I started to learn about brass compression fittings and Iron Pipe – Tapered specs, but now that I have acquired valuable skills in PVC fittings–did you know that a slip connector end in Drain-Waste-Ventilation grade is called Street or Hub, whereas in Schedule 40, it is Socket or Spigot?–I am totally hooked.

    • #136
  17. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I got a STEM degree and I work part-time in a hardware store. 

    Now, there are two aisles for things used by electricians, but helping them find those products is not really in my area of study, Electrical Engineering, not like in in.  In fact, I decided to specialize in Plumbing.  I got interested when I started to learn about brass compression fittings and Iron Pipe – Tapered specs, but now that I have acquired valuable skills in PVC fittings–did you know that a slip connector end in Drain-Waste-Ventilation grade is called Street or Hub, whereas in Schedule 40, it is Socket or Spigot?–I am totally hooked.

    Back when I started in construction plumbers were still using oakum and molten lead.

    • #137
  18. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I got a STEM degree and I work part-time in a hardware store.

    Now, there are two aisles for things used by electricians, but helping them find those products is not really in my area of study, Electrical Engineering, not like in in. In fact, I decided to specialize in Plumbing. I got interested when I started to learn about brass compression fittings and Iron Pipe – Tapered specs, but now that I have acquired valuable skills in PVC fittings–did you know that a slip connector end in Drain-Waste-Ventilation grade is called Street or Hub, whereas in Schedule 40, it is Socket or Spigot?–I am totally hooked.

    Back when I started in construction plumbers were still using oakum and molten lead.

    If you’re ever in Loveland, OH on a Monday evening, you would fit in with the guys from the hardware store after work.  First round’s mine.

    • #138
  19. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I got a STEM degree and I work part-time in a hardware store.

    Now, there are two aisles for things used by electricians, but helping them find those products is not really in my area of study, Electrical Engineering, not like in in. In fact, I decided to specialize in Plumbing. I got interested when I started to learn about brass compression fittings and Iron Pipe – Tapered specs, but now that I have acquired valuable skills in PVC fittings–did you know that a slip connector end in Drain-Waste-Ventilation grade is called Street or Hub, whereas in Schedule 40, it is Socket or Spigot?–I am totally hooked.

    Back when I started in construction plumbers were still using oakum and molten lead.

    If you’re ever in Loveland, OH on a Monday evening, you would fit in with the guys from the hardware store after work. First round’s mine.

    Thanks.  I’m just old, and have been involved in construction for a long time.

    • #139
  20. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I’ve read it was the 1971 Supreme Court Griggs decision which declared that aptitude tests given by a company to prospective employees were discriminatory (disparate impact), having no way to know the qualifications of applicants they started requiring college degrees for jobs where a high school diploma had sufficed in the past. In a few years all the HR gate keepers had degrees making a degree in any major at all essentially mandatory for employment.

    If it is illegal discrimination to use aptitude tests as a basis for employment, why is it not illegal to use them as a basis for college admission?

    • #140
  21. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I’ve read it was the 1971 Supreme Court Griggs decision which declared that aptitude tests given by a company to prospective employees were discriminatory (disparate impact), having no way to know the qualifications of applicants they started requiring college degrees for jobs where a high school diploma had sufficed in the past. In a few years all the HR gate keepers had degrees making a degree in any major at all essentially mandatory for employment.

    If it is illegal discrimination to use aptitude tests as a basis for employment, why is it not illegal to use them as a basis for college admission?

    What kind of hater wants opportunities given to those who can make use of those opportunities? 

    • #141
  22. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I’ve read it was the 1971 Supreme Court Griggs decision which declared that aptitude tests given by a company to prospective employees were discriminatory (disparate impact), having no way to know the qualifications of applicants they started requiring college degrees for jobs where a high school diploma had sufficed in the past. In a few years all the HR gate keepers had degrees making a degree in any major at all essentially mandatory for employment.

    If it is illegal discrimination to use aptitude tests as a basis for employment, why is it not illegal to use them as a basis for college admission?

    It’s not.  The correct interpretation is that the employer had to have a reason for the test and the standard.  If the job is digging a ditch, you can’t require a test that measures ability to read and write with the intended or unintended result of excluding blacks who can’t read and write, for instance.

    Here is the gist of the ruling:  “

    “As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a “reasonable measure of job performance,” regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power’s employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act.”

    Note that this is not a Constitutionality ruling, it’s just an interpretation of a statute.  Congress has the power to change this if it wishes.

    • #142
  23. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I’ve read it was the 1971 Supreme Court Griggs decision which declared that aptitude tests given by a company to prospective employees were discriminatory (disparate impact), having no way to know the qualifications of applicants they started requiring college degrees for jobs where a high school diploma had sufficed in the past. In a few years all the HR gate keepers had degrees making a degree in any major at all essentially mandatory for employment.

    If it is illegal discrimination to use aptitude tests as a basis for employment, why is it not illegal to use them as a basis for college admission?

    It’s not. The correct interpretation is that the employer had to have a reason for the test and the standard. If the job is digging a ditch, you can’t require a test that measures ability to read and write with the intended or unintended result of excluding blacks who can’t read and write, for instance.

    Here is the gist of the ruling: “

    “As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a “reasonable measure of job performance,” regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power’s employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act.”

    Note that this is not a Constitutionality ruling, it’s just an interpretation of a statute. Congress has the power to change this if it wishes.

    I want to point out an important point that you didn’t: the statute is clearly unconstitutional, and a violation of basic human rights.

    The statute says that a citizen cannot decide not to give his property to another citizen who wants to exchange it for certain labor, if the prospective employer wishes to contract only with a person with certain skills, if in the opinion of the court, the employer ought not to value those skills.  That he OUGHT not to wish to make that exchange.  In a free society, and under the Constitution, the opinion of a judge about what a person SHOULD want to do with his property, what skills he OUGHT to value, is irrelevant.  It is the citizen’s property, not the State’s.  The statute makes the citizen’s possessions the property of the State, to the extent of the statute’s demands.

    • #143
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I’ve read it was the 1971 Supreme Court Griggs decision which declared that aptitude tests given by a company to prospective employees were discriminatory (disparate impact), having no way to know the qualifications of applicants they started requiring college degrees for jobs where a high school diploma had sufficed in the past. In a few years all the HR gate keepers had degrees making a degree in any major at all essentially mandatory for employment.

    If it is illegal discrimination to use aptitude tests as a basis for employment, why is it not illegal to use them as a basis for college admission?

    It’s not. The correct interpretation is that the employer had to have a reason for the test and the standard. If the job is digging a ditch, you can’t require a test that measures ability to read and write with the intended or unintended result of excluding blacks who can’t read and write, for instance.

    Here is the gist of the ruling: “

    “As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a “reasonable measure of job performance,” regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power’s employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act.”

    Note that this is not a Constitutionality ruling, it’s just an interpretation of a statute. Congress has the power to change this if it wishes.

    I want to point out an important point that you didn’t: the statute is clearly unconstitutional, and a violation of basic human rights.

    The statute says that a citizen cannot decide not to give his property to another citizen who wants to exchange it for certain labor, if the prospective employer wishes to contract only with a person with certain skills, if in the opinion of the court, the employer ought not to value those skills. That he OUGHT not to wish to make that exchange. In a free society, and under the Constitution, the opinion of a judge about what a person SHOULD want to do with his property, what skills he OUGHT to value, is irrelevant. It is the citizen’s property, not the State’s. The statute makes the citizen’s possessions the property of the State, to the extent of the statute’s demands.

    Interesting.  Would you change your interpretation if, for example, a landlord wanted a correctly completed reading/math/etc test before renting an apartment, which could even be said to have more validity than such a test for a ditch-digging job since a landlord may want some assurance that a prospective tenant knows how to read the contract and pay the bills?

    • #144
  25. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I want to point out an important point that you didn’t: the statute is clearly unconstitutional, and a violation of basic human rights.

     

    There’s a difference between what is “right” and what is “constitutional.”  As currently understood, the Court decides what is constitutional and what isn’t.  You might think it clear as day, and so do I, but we are beholden to a political process that let’s them say whatever they want to say.  

    It’s like I tell my legal clients:  It doesn’t matter what the law says or what you think it says, it only matters what gets enforced.  

    • #145
  26. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I want to point out an important point that you didn’t: the statute is clearly unconstitutional, and a violation of basic human rights.

    The statute says that a citizen cannot decide not to give his property to another citizen who wants to exchange it for certain labor, if the prospective employer wishes to contract only with a person with certain skills, if in the opinion of the court, the employer ought not to value those skills. That he OUGHT not to wish to make that exchange. In a free society, and under the Constitution, the opinion of a judge about what a person SHOULD want to do with his property, what skills he OUGHT to value, is irrelevant. It is the citizen’s property, not the State’s. The statute makes the citizen’s possessions the property of the State, to the extent of the statute’s demands.

    Interesting. Would you change your interpretation if, for example, a landlord wanted a correctly completed reading/math/etc test before renting an apartment, which could even be said to have more validity than such a test for a ditch-digging job since a landlord may want some assurance that a prospective tenant knows how to read the contract and pay the bills?

    No.

    • #146
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.