Follow Up to Comments on Why Is College the Default

I appreciated the many comments to my post Why is College (4 years, $160k) the Default?. The points were varied but steady in theme: don’t write off college! Technology educator Richard Kassissieh encouraged me to think about who works at colleges and why – ie professors are paid to make their minds available to you. Entrepreneur Chris Yeh admitted that he’s overly educated but couldn’t imagine life without it (I will address this in a moment). He makes the good point, “It is very seductive to believe that just doing what you’re passionate about is enough. But the world works in a certain way, and even if you decide not to follow those rules, it’s important to know and understand them.” Venture Capitalist David Cowan remarked that he learned the most in college by accident in the moments when you’re not “supposed” to be learning. He concluded, “Can you reproduce the experience without enrolling? I doubt it. You’ve got only one short life–why screw around with it? Seize the opportunity that people your age across nations and centuries have only dreamed of. You’ll love it.” The best comment in my opinion came from investor and civic leader Richard Springwater (excerpt): “The one thing that college can give you that you can never get anywhere else is a foundation in the basic literature of our culture. I find myself using my college education every day because all ideas are connected and they all go back to sources. The right school for you will operate in a purposeful way to introduce you to the canon of essential works. This is harder than it sounds because it cannot be self-assembled – you need an institution that understands its mission in this light and organizes its curriculum with a focus on the linkages. Over the past 40 years, most schools have pandered to the demands of their students for more electives, and to their faculty for more freedom to teach their specialties, and the result has been a directionless in education. The fact is that the consumers (students) have a variety of goals, most involving careers or killing time, with a small minority actually interested in what you describe as “learning to learn.” Someone who learns throughout his life for no reason other than abiding curiosity is called an intellectual. If you recognize yourself, than you need to find a place that will appreciate and understand you.”

Let me make one general point, first: I have not written off college. Indeed, as I have chronicled in my College Process posts or School posts I am visiting schools and will be applying to many in the fall. On the surface, a university environment seems like it would be a chocolate factory to me: tons of super smart people, guest speakers, a Yellow Pages thick course catalog of engaging courses, and so forth. These are all prime drivers in my excitement about college – I know I will milk its resources to death. On the other hand, I fear many of the reservations I have about high school (and the formal education system in general) only continue at the higher ed level. Given the extraordinary cost and time that one needs to devote to obtain a degree, I’m embracing alternative methods to acquire the same knowledge and experiences.

When Chris says above that “he couldn’t imagine life without it” (Stanford/Harvard education) this crystallizes a key point in my mind: for any kid who wants to go places, an official college degree seems so automatically essential that anything to the contrary seems beyond our imagination for how it could work. Along these lines, Kathy Sierra did a follow up post to her “Does College Matter?” post which prompted this discussion. In it she cities a cognitive scientist at Northwestern (previously chair of the CS department at Yale) who, after complaining that most of his Yale students weren’t there to get a strong education and mostly to party, get a good job afterwards, etc., says: “A good deal of cognitive dissonance is at work here. Because people labored so diligently at school for so many years, they convince themselves that there must have been a lot of learning going on.”

It surprises me that a Yale prof would say this – for I suspect this is less the case at the very top universities in the country. I think you will often hear similar things at middle tier colleges like where Seth Godin taught when he told me most of his students were there to get a degree. Because of the trade-offs I have made in high school (lower grades, run a company) I most likely cannot get in to the very top tier schools. There are tons of great schools out there, but many of my blog readers email me and say things like “Harvard’s a great school” or “You can go anywhere you want, why pass up?” Simply not true.

Finally, David Cowan above asks “You’ve only got one short life – why screw around with it?” The rebel in me says, Why NOT screw around with it? It seems to me that the world’s most preeminent thinkers and doers who literally moved the human race forward were those who wanted to screw with the status quo. People called ’em crazy at the time, but history has thanked them. And I look up to those people who thought different.

Why is College (4 years, $160k) the Default?

A great post at the Creating Passionate Users blog titled “Does college matter?” She basically asks the same question I’ve been asking for a few months now: given the state of undergraduate education (she cites the new book Declining by Degrees: Higher Ed at Risk) and the fact beer is the overriding memory of college by most, why is it considered the default that after high school students charge off to a four year college? By the way, at a private college like the ones my brothers go to the tuition is $40k/year (everything included). Think about how one could spend $160k over four years to become a life long learner.

The conventional wisdom says that the specifics of what you learn are much less important than the fact that you’re learning the fundamentals, and you’re learning to learn–things you’ll need to maintain your skills and knowledge in a quickly changing world.

The problem is, you virtually never hear a student say that. It’s always the parents or someone speaking on behalf of the educational system. When was the last time you honestly heard (and believed) an actual current college student claim that the true benefit of their formal college education is in learning to be a lifelong learner? That’s just bull***.

Others claim that the benefit of a college degree is really more about socialization and independence. I’ve heard reasonably smart adults say, with all sincerity, that spending $80,000 [it’s more like $160k] so little Suzy could learn to live on her own was worth it. I think there are a thousand different, and often better, ways to achieve that. Suzy could join the peace corp, for example, or go on one of those “learning vacations” where you do an archeological dig. Hell, just a three-month long trip through Europe with a couple friends and a rail pass (or, as a friend of mine did, a bike trip across Turkey) is certainly going to do more for socialization and independence than a traditional college environment, and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

I have more thoughts on this issue but I am struggling to decide whether to post them publicly on my blog. Perhaps sometime in the near future I will share my idea for feedback.

Book Reviews: Wealth and Democracy; Rich Dad/Poor Dad

Two books about money. The first, by recommendation, was Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich by Kevin Phillips. It has received critical acclaim for its broad treatment of history – starting at the very beginning – to the current administration. Phillips examines how the wealthy stay wealthy (and not by promoting less government, instead by exerting tremendous influence over the government) and the effects of the American rich on democracy. A number of compelling tidbits but the constant switching back and forth between history and present day (especially when all those historical details aren’t of great interest to me) makes me question whether it was worth the 350 page effort.

Second was Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money – That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not. I gave this to my Dad for father’s day and gave it a quick read when he was done. It’s been a NYT best seller for months and months so I had high expectations. Unfortunately the author comes across as a greedy son of a bitch who’s life starts and ends with making money. I say unfortunate because he makes a number of good points: take risks and live an entrepreneurial life, become financially literate, etc. But he forgets another important point: after taking care of basic needs, there’s no correlation between money and happiness.

Anonymous Comment on Impassioned Readers Post

I just got an anonymous comment on my post Impassioned Readers Lead Active Lives where he or she claims my final rhetorical question “Are you a vigorous actor on the stage of life engaged with the world of ideas?” wasn’t truly posed at the reader but was rather a veiled form of self-affirmation.

“Are you a vigorous actor on the stage of life engaged with the world of ideas?”

Oh please, Ben. You’ve got an incredible mind, and most of your blog entries are truly engaging and interesting to read, but this sentence is just a veiled form of self-affirmation. It has nothing to do with truly asking a question of the reader, and really only makes you come off as seeming insecure about yourself and whether reading so many books is truly a good thing to be doing with your time. If you truly were comfortable with being told by people to “break out of your shell”, you wouldn’t have to constantly keep defending just how “big and worldly” your shell is. You would just move on, knowing full well who you are, why you’re doing what you’re doing, and why your actions will speak for themselves in the long run. You don’t need to keep defending who you are.

I concede that it wasn’t a true question posed at readers, but rather a sign that I’m a sucker for eloquent rhetoric (the words appeared in the article) with a metaphor I’ve never heard before (actor on stage of life). I do suppose, however, that by including it in the way I did it came across as snooty, which I regret.

The Pursuit and Misuse of Useless Information

Will Price has a fantastic post summarizing a Princeton paper on “the pursuit and misuse of useless information.” He sums up the paper well by talking about how we love to obtain additional, useless information before making a decision and then how we let that noninstrumental information affect the process. It seems to me that people think about these things when making *big* decisions, so our real losses come during all those day-to-day decisions that we make without thinking twice and, given our bad habits, we fall prey to these fallacies.