Historically, college was a finishing school for the wealthy. This is not a new argument.
The new argument is that colleges should provide job training. Previously, this was the role of vocational or training schools.
And employers.
college is probably the only time in your life that an entire team of domain experts will be obligated to take time out of their day to meet with you and answer your questions, however silly or low-level they may be.
as a professor, college is one of the only places where you can get paid to work on things that not only have no near-term value, but likely will never have any practical value at all! (I guess this could also be an argument against college...)
I do think there is a problem with the way people understand college. outside of a couple majors (ie computer science), college should really be considered something like a luxury good. it isn't economic in the sense of dollars, cents, and balance sheets, but something that has it's own intrinsic value for those who take advantage of it (a distinct minority of undergrad students).
disclaimer: I think I am one of these people who college is mostly wasted on. I don't go to office hours, participate in clubs, or really do anything other than really good work on programming assignments and cramming for exams. I'm mostly in it for the piece of paper.
Not coincidentally, most of the most powerful world-altering ideas (the type that spawn trillions of dollars of new previously unconsidered industries, lead to new communication mediums, cause or prevent wars, topple governments, or set the terms of future laws) come out of work done at colleges or other publicly funded research institutions, often considered at the time to be of no practical value.
There are whole fields of study which serve as society-wide multipliers but each individual tiny advance is not worth it to any particular company to hire someone to spend their whole career studying.
OTOH, if you attended college I'm pretty curious what that was like for you.
The cost of college forces some people to also argument for better revenue opportunities and better fit for future jobs, because otherwise burning through ungodly amounts of money just to be a better rounded person would be a hard sell.
In countries where university are cheaper nobody bats an eye at someone going through the cycles just for the sake of it, purely to learn interesting things.
We do. Every year discovering yourself is a year you're not productive. Those cheaper university fees come from taxes which you need employed people to pay. I'd argue the US system is fairer: people who enjoy university education pay for it. In Europe, people who got in trade and never thought about getting a university degree are paying for those for get them.
The unfairness in the US system comes largely from the fact that, depending on what kind of family you come from, college may be very easy for you to attend or very difficult.
Stateside, as NPL rates increases with the nominal prices of attending, this becomes less true on top of that it is assumed that future taxes will support these increases well into the future.
Tuition is pretty cheap in Canada-- definitely as compared to the States. I'm actually at university to do just that. I'm in a math degree while I get my certs. I'm getting a minor in Latin, because learning the language is literally on my bucket list. I'm having a pretty good time, I'd say.
Although, with this argumentation, one could simply change university with some other novel experience, like military service.
I'm not sure how you could do the same without going to college
> Join a large church and you can probably meet people in every city too, and you won't need to take out huge loans to do it.
most people only go to their local church. Many people from my uni were from out of state
I don't contact random alumni, unless we already have several mutual friends in common. Or were part of the same student associations.
The more college is shown to be failing the job market, the more I hear this argument.
Are people who don't go to college less enriched individuals?
Lately, academics seem to be shifting their value proposition to the instillation of this undetectable unmeasurable X-factor. We can't see it, we can't prove that it exists, but it's there, and its value is absolutely incalculable. How convenient for the sales pitch is this.
And I don't blame them. As knowledge and skills become accessible to everyone, that's the last defense they'll be left with. What else are they going to say? Our institution is completely out of touch with the job market and the economic realities of our nation, and this was all a complete waste of time?
Also, a lot of arguments in favor of college make the mistake of comparing it to nothing, and I think this argument is guilty of that.
I'll admit that college compares favorably to doing nothing, but people who skip college aren't just sitting alone in a room staring at a white wall while you're in your lectures. They have 1 year of life experiences for every 1 year of yours. Whatever it means to be an enriched individual, people who don't go to college can be just as enriched.
They can go live on their own too. They can take on responsibility, take on challenging work, have relationships, and most of them do. College was your path there and it worked well for you, and that's great. But I also agree with you that it's not ideal for everybody (or even for most people).