For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

[y66]

Do you agree with this statement?

 

An educational world based on certification tests would be a better place in many ways.

 

This statement appears in a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Charles Murray entitled "For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time".

 

Excerpts:

 

Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.

 

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

 

The model is the CPA exam that qualifies certified public accountants. The same test is used nationwide. It is thorough -- four sections, timed, totaling 14 hours. A passing score indicates authentic competence (the pass rate is below 50%). Actual scores are reported in addition to pass/fail, so that employers can assess where the applicant falls in the distribution of accounting competence. You may have learned accounting at an anonymous online university, but your CPA score gives you a way to show employers you're a stronger applicant than someone from an Ivy League school.

 

The merits of a CPA-like certification exam apply to any college major for which the BA is now used as a job qualification. To name just some of them: criminal justice, social work, public administration and the many separate majors under the headings of business, computer science and education. Such majors accounted for almost two-thirds of the bachelor's degrees conferred in 2005. For that matter, certification tests can be used for purely academic disciplines. Why not present graduate schools with certifications in microbiology or economics -- and who cares if the applicants passed the exam after studying in the local public library?

 

Certification tests need not undermine the incentives to get a traditional liberal-arts education. If professional and graduate schools want students who have acquired one, all they need do is require certification scores in the appropriate disciplines. Students facing such requirements are likely to get a much better liberal education than even our most elite schools require now.

 

Certification tests will not get rid of the problems associated with differences in intellectual ability: People with high intellectual ability will still have an edge. Graduates of prestigious colleges will still, on average, have higher certification scores than people who have taken online courses -- just because prestigious colleges attract intellectually talented applicants.

 

But that's irrelevant to the larger issue. Under a certification system, four years is not required, residence is not required, expensive tuitions are not required, and a degree is not required. Equal educational opportunity means, among other things, creating a society in which it's what you know that makes the difference. Substituting certifications for degrees would be a big step in that direction.

 

The incentives are right. Certification tests would provide all employers with valuable, trustworthy information about job applicants. They would benefit young people who cannot or do not want to attend a traditional four-year college. They would be welcomed by the growing post-secondary online educational industry, which cannot offer the halo effect of a BA from a traditional college, but can realistically promise their students good training for a certification test -- as good as they are likely to get at a traditional college, for a lot less money and in a lot less time.

 

Certification tests would disadvantage just one set of people: Students who have gotten into well-known traditional schools, but who are coasting through their years in college and would score poorly on a certification test. Disadvantaging them is an outcome devoutly to be wished.

 

No technical barriers stand in the way of evolving toward a system where certification tests would replace the BA. Hundreds of certification tests already exist, for everything from building code inspectors to advanced medical specialties. The problem is a shortage of tests that are nationally accepted, like the CPA exam.

 

But when so many of the players would benefit, a market opportunity exists. If a high-profile testing company such as the Educational Testing Service were to reach a strategic decision to create definitive certification tests, it could coordinate with major employers, professional groups and nontraditional universities to make its tests the gold standard. A handful of key decisions could produce a tipping effect. Imagine if Microsoft announced it would henceforth require scores on a certain battery of certification tests from all of its programming applicants. Scores on that battery would acquire instant credibility for programming job applicants throughout the industry.

 

An educational world based on certification tests would be a better place in many ways, but the overarching benefit is that the line between college and noncollege competencies would be blurred. Hardly any jobs would still have the BA as a requirement for a shot at being hired. Opportunities would be wider and fairer, and the stigma of not having a BA would diminish.

 

Most important in an increasingly class-riven America: The demonstration of competency in business administration or European history would, appropriately, take on similarities to the demonstration of competency in cooking or welding. Our obsession with the BA has created a two-tiered entry to adulthood, anointing some for admission to the club and labeling the rest as second-best.

 

Here's the reality: Everyone in every occupation starts as an apprentice. Those who are good enough become journeymen. The best become master craftsmen. This is as true of business executives and history professors as of chefs and welders. Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence -- treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships for everyone -- is one way to help us to recognize that common bond.

 

Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality" (Crown Forum).

[Winstonm]

One of the main advantages to an employer of a college diploma is that it shows that the individual who is being contemplated for employment has the ability to complete tasks in which he has no real interest or like - in other words, he has some modicum of self discipline.

 

Unfortunately, the costs of obtaining that degree along with the stagnation of wages has made a college degree somewhat of a malinvestment in time and money.

[hrothgar]

I think this is almost laughable...

 

While I haven't worked at Microsoft I have worked at several top tier computer companies here in the US. I've also been involved in hiring decisions at the same types of places.

 

Guess what... Good software developers aren't fungible. They aren't stamped out with cookie cutters. You can't replace swap one out for another. Those engineer positions that could be produced using a rote certification process have all been outsourced to India.

 

When I'm looking at software engineers, I consider Computer Science degrees a negative. "Certifications" are a big negative. I look for

 

1. Music degrees

2. "Pure" math

3. Foreign language skills

4. Physics experience

 

Furthermore, a college education isn't summed up in a bachelor's degree or a Grade Point Average. College is where students demonstrate whether or not they love to learn. That's what I really need to know... Is this person going to do the bare minimum it takes to pass some certification test? Alternatively, are they self motivated enough to avoid many of the distractions associated with undergrad and take advantage of all the opportunities that a college provides.

[TimG]

College is where students demonstrate whether or not they love to learn.

Why must this love of learning be demonstrated in today's institutional settings?

Is this person going to do the bare minimum it takes to pass some certification test?

You'd be able to figure this out in a certification world, wouldn't you? Nothing preventing you from interviewing job candidates and looking at their records beyond the certification.

[mr1303]

College for me was where I took some drugs, drank a lot of alcohol, played a lot of bridge and dated a lot of women. Somehow I ended up with a degree at the end of it.

[pclayton]

College for me was where I took some drugs, drank a lot of alcohol, played a lot of bridge and dated a lot of women. Somehow I ended up with a degree at the end of it.

Perhaps then you could get a Certificate for pot-smoking and binge drinking. I would have qualified.

 

College is more than obtaining vocational skills. Its about learning to think critically.

[kenberg]

College, for me, definitely was not a waste of time. My experience there could not have been duplicated or approximated by any certification course.

 

Obviously it depends on interests and values. I was interested in mathematics and I trusted that if I learned how to do it decently I could find a way to support myself at it. I understood, I think far better than many young people today, that I had to earn a living. But my pursuit of mathematics was interest driven, not based on an assessment of future earnings.

 

While I was at college I developed other interests. I took a course in the history and philosophy of religion from the excellent Paul Holmer: http://www.pietisten.org/fall04/paulholmer.html

and a course that was supposed to be Roman humanities, but turned out to be something entirely different, from the eccentric but brilliant John Berryman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Berryman

 

There were many others. I never got around to the drugs, but this was the fifties. I drank my share. And maybe someone else's share also. I still do.

 

Absolutely not a waste. Now if what a guy wants to do is make a lot of money then maybe so. Bill Gates dropped out of college did he not?

[Guest Jlall]

College is where students demonstrate whether or not they love to learn.

Why must this love of learning be demonstrated in today's institutional settings?

x2

[matmat]

just some random thoughts

 

I think a college degree has become somewhat of a status symbol. As a consequence a ton of marginally accredited schools have cropped up all over the place, offering easy, fast degrees, deflating the meaning of a college degree.

 

 

Several European countries make it tough for people to go to a university, and, actually, professional specialization happens at the high school level. Other vocational schools are then available at the next step up

How many 18 yos have you met that knew exactly what they wanted to do and what they were good at. College gives them an opportunity to figure this things out. Now, granted, this could be done earlier, but moving to a certification based employment market would force a major overhaul of the high-school system.

 

 

I think of college as a much more social experience than straight up booklearnin' (drugs/alcohol/whatever included). Additionally, taking classes, especially in the sciences and engineering, fosters the ability to work in groups. When I was in high school the development of that skill was vastly lacking there. Also, colleges provide a platform for networking and raising social/political awareness.

 

I don't know whether employers look at the GPA when making their staffing decisions, but i think it is laughable to not consider the courses taken along with the gpa... you almost need a difficulty score in addition to the grade... just like olympic gymnastics.

[gwnn]

These threads are amazing. Last month was 'is knowing long division a good thing?' and now 'is college a good thing?'. Just goes on to show that I am indoctrinated by my ex Communist country or something.

[matmat]

These threads are amazing. Last month was 'is knowing long division a good thing?' and now 'is college a good thing?'. Just goes on to show that I am indoctrinated by my ex Communist country or something.

nah, csaba... you're just dumb :( :P :D

[mike777]

"Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance"

 

 

 

My guess is most employees would be very happy to hire on the basis of intellectual ability and perseverance.

 

I think many posters are confusing getting Certified...means you took some certification course.

 

Getting a CPA or CFA charter does not mean you took some certification course.

Passing the CFA exams(there are 3) was ten times harder for me than my MBA or BS. were.

[han]

No opinion.

[kenberg]

Maybe apropos of nothing but I am reminded of a student I encountered some years back. He was a college senior in mathematics and came to me for advising. He asked me to select the easiest curses with the easiest teachers, and made it clear that under no circumstances would he take a course that required proving anything. Generally I figured my job was to help a student achieve his goals, whatever they were, but this was over the top, or maybe under the bottom, so I said "I have to ask. Why are you majoring in mathematics?" He explained that mathematics was regarded as a difficult major and he figured it would look good on his employment application. He figured he could then get a good job where he would never have to do any math again.

 

 

If you are out there reading this, fella, please let me know how this plan worked out.

 

 

Maybe this is apropos of the topic. Sometimes young people are advised to go to college even though they have no interest whatsoever in academics. This has always seemed crazy to me. People cite statistics about college grads earning more money. On average, sure. But I bet a guy who learns how to handle complex construction equipment and enjoys the job does far better than the guy who farts around in college for four or five or six years and gets out with a degree in not much and no knowledge of anything he wants to do.

[blackshoe]

"Do what you love" is good advice.

[awm]

The vast majority of young people will switch careers at some point in their lives. Technology and society are advancing so rapidly that it is quite likely there are skills which "everyone" will need in ten-twenty years which haven't even been invented yet.

 

In this sort of society, it is not enough to acquire specific skills (however valuable in the present day) and then just assume those skills will carry one to a successful career. Many of the jobs which simply require labor rather than innovating and interacting can be done by machines now (or will be automated in the near future) or in any case have been exported to developing countries with a cheaper labor force.

 

What's needed in the modern world is the ability to quickly learn and assimilate new skills, to network and interact with other people (including people from foreign countries or from very different educational backgrounds), and to express oneself clearly and logically. These are the sorts of skills that a college environment (ideally) fosters. Of course, some colleges are better than others and it is possible to "sneak" through many colleges and obtain a diploma without these skills, but by and large this is the reason for a college experience.

 

None of these abilities are particularly well tested in certification exams, which generally look for specific job-related skills. Of course, to actually do a job you need specific skills, but a lot of employers would rather have someone with the abilities listed above (and simply give them on-the-job training) rather than have someone who actually knows how to do the job as it is now but will be totally lost with the next technological revolution.

[Gerben42]

"Do what you love" is good advice.

 

Right. It doesn't so much matter WHAT you study in college, but that you finish it. On the other hand, keep in mind that the US college system is vastly different from the European one, even though we now have formally switched to bachelor-master.

 

I have the feeling that some college degrees are just given for attendance, and that can not be the right way. Any college where more than 50% of the entrants get a degree, is very suspicious.

 

The extremely clever ones like Bill Gates may be successful without college, but most won't. The same for investors. For any one Buffett or Trump there are thousands and thousands of people who tried and failed.

 

Back to do what you love. If you try mathematics or engineering "because of the good job prospects", forget it. Either you like it or you are going to fail. If some college is going to pass you anyway, a degree from there is probably known for that and is best used as toilet paper.

[Al_U_Card]

?

College (or university as well refer to institutions of higher learning here in the GWN) is simply a prep for work in the real world.

 

Doing some stuff you like.

Doing lots of stuff you don't like.

Getting along with most of the people that you are doing that stuff with.

Having a schedule.

Meeting deadlines.

Figuring out ways to "get by"

Performance reviews and evaluations

 

That is why it is still an advantage in job hunting.

[Echognome]

There is actually a long-standing literature in economics about this, for which Michael Spence won the Nobel prize.

 

Michael Spence is probably most famous for his job-market signaling model, which essentially triggered the enormous volume of literature in this branch of contract theory. In this model, employees signal their respective skills to employers by acquiring a certain degree of education, which is costly to them. Employers will pay higher wages to more educated employees, because they know that the proportion of employees with high abilities is higher among the educated ones, as it is less costly for them to acquire education than it is for employees with low abilities. For the model to work, it is not even necessary for education to have any intrinsic value if it can convey information about the sender (employee) to the recipient (employer) and if the signal is costly.

 

There were a couple of Labor economists at Warwick University that were doing an empirical application of this theory using UK job market data while I was there. They expanded the question to look not only at whether students attended university, but also how well they did (gradewise) while at University. You can find their working paper here:

 

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...s/twerp_786.pdf

 

My personal view is that there are many talented people without a college degree. The question is more from an employer's side. It would obviously depend a lot on the position to which you are hiring. But suppose you are hiring for an entry-level executive position. Would you consider candidates that did not have a college degree? How would you compare two candidates: one which had a college degree, the other which did not, but had four years experience working in an office? I think part of the problem is comparing apples and oranges.

 

I personally don't have strong opinions on the matter. I think that for certain jobs (such as academics!), college can serve as important job training. For others it's just a place to broaden your knowledge base and pass time before you enter the work force. But as long as there is a premium on job pay for those with a college education, colleges are going to continue to charge a lot for attending and students will attend.

[P_Marlowe]

"Do what you love" is good advice.

 

<snip>

The extremely clever ones like Bill Gates may be successful without college, but most won't. The same for investors. For any one Buffett or Trump there are thousands and thousands of people who tried and failed.

 

Back to do what you love.

<snip>

Good advice.

 

Just wanted to add: Warren Buffett went to the Columbia University

in New York, one of his teacher was Benjamin Graham, Buffett took

those lessons to heart, his investment strategy was hugely influence

by Graham.

 

Bill Gates went to Harvard, and he met there Steve Ballmer.

 

Donald Trump went to Fordham University in New York, and also too

Wharton School, a well known Bussines School, where he made his

degree.

 

Jerry Yang and David Filo (founders of Yahoo) learnt each other to know

at Stanford.

 

For that matter Dietmar Hopp (founder of SAP) got a degree from the

technical university in Karlsruhe, similar the other SAP founders got

a degree from other universities.

 

Last but not least Larry Page and Segey Brin (Google) went also to

Stanford, and met there.

 

To finish this: I doubt you find a lot of succesful guys out there, who do

not have a t least spend 1 or 2 years at a university.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The above biographical knowlede is taken from wikipedia articles.

[Gerben42]

But suppose you are hiring for an entry-level executive position.

 

I'm not "into" this kind of stuff but it is usual to hire entry-level executives from outside, rather than take people with some experience in the company. I wouldn't want a boss who has a degree in something wishywashy like management and clueless about what the company is actually doing.

[blackshoe]

One of the biggest advantages of the college route is the network you set up while you're there.

[kenberg]

It seems to me that Murray's argument, quoted in the original post, places too much faith in these tests that he hopes to see appear. It is not easy making up good tests on complex subject matter. Making up calculus exams is easy. The whole subject has been mummified and the exams can be written, taken and graded while sleeping. Making up a good Ph.D. qualifying exam is much harder. I have made many of both.

 

Murray is a very smart guy. I looked up the short entry on him in the Wikipedia. He credits the SAT with getting him into Harvard from a small Iowa town. I come from a very non-academic background myself and I can easily see this way of thinking. It's a very good thing for exams to exist where someone of modest background can show that he has some ability. That's not the same thing as saying it would be good to reduce the whole education process to a bunch of certification exams. I do not favor that.

[mycroft]

One of the most important things I learned in my Engineering degree was that it was obvious within a week if my professor had gone B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., postdoc, tenure-track; or whether they had actually done any real engineering in the Real World. It was also immediately clear who were the better for my knowledge of Engineering. I vowed then, that although I had planned on going into Academia (because I liked, and still like, to teach people who want to learn), I was getting some time in the trenches first.

 

I then found out that in Academia, teaching is something you do because it's in the contract, and not actually important either for getting hired or staying that way. I also found a Real Job and a Hobby Job that involve education, and love it.

 

In general, I agree that it doesn't much matter what you know, as long as you can learn; and a college degree is evidence that you can learn. It would be nice if we could focus on that in primary and secondary education rather than "our kids are getting 5% lower on the standard test of knowledge (i.e. what they know) than they are, so teach them more facts to memorize."

 

If you're a professional, of whatever stripe, "what you know" becomes more important, but those Legal books aren't in the office just for show, nor are the surgical procedural journals in your neuro's office.

[benlessard]

People who have successful studies usually fall under one of those categories.

 

 

1- They are brillant

2- They are perseverant

3- They are very methodical and follow guidelines.

4- They have great social skill that allow them to swindle throught college or universities.

 

Why wouldnt you hire those people ?

 

Im not saying that its the best time investment possible, but its a fairly good deal and for companies degrees are a kind of safety play.