I want to begin by congratulating Michael Ellsberg, who this past Sunday (Oct. 23) published in the pages of The New York Times an op-ed piece ("Will Dropouts Save America?") arguing that the key to American's economic future was the production of more college dropouts. Somehow he managed to skip the marketing section of The Times altogether and publish an extended advertisement for his book, The Education of Millionaires: It's Not What You Think and It's Not Too Late, for free. Nicely done.
There are few things more condescending and destructive than those who have benefited from an expensive and intensive college education (Mr. Ellsberg is a graduate of Brown University) arguing that others need not bother about such benefits for themselves.
Let us take a look at Mr. Ellsberg's argument. "Certainly, if you want to become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, then you must go to college." "True, people with college degrees tend to earn more." "Most people who end up starting business likely have college degrees." One would think that these would together comprise a reasonably compelling case for the benefits to our society and our economy of fewer dropouts.
But if you reach such a conclusion, you have probably had your creative thinking crushed by such unnecessary college courses as economics, statistics, and philosophy (where they teach logic). Mr. Ellsberg takes us down a different road.
Yes, colleges are good at producing "professionals with degrees." But, he counters, "we don't have a shortage of lawyers and professors." Leaving aside the question of whether we will benefit in the future from well-educated lawyers and professors, I note that Mr. Ellsberg fails here to mention doctors or engineers or researchers or any other professionals in fields related to science and mathematics, where we do in fact face a dangerous shortage in the United States and upon whom global health, global innovation, and the global economy are so dependent.
People with college degrees do indeed earn more -- and find jobs more easily, with an unemployment rate at present in this country of about five percent -- but, Mr. Ellsberg insists, "there is little evidence to suggest that the same ambitious people would earn less without college degrees (particularly if they mastered true business and networking grit)." There is little evidence because there cannot by definition be such evidence: it is simply impossible to prove a hypothetical negative of this kind. I leave it to the reader to determine whether or not "grit" sounds like a reasonable alternative to a better system of science education for America's youth.
As for the detail that most business creators have college degrees? Mr. Ellsberg is prepared for that one as well. "Assuming that college was responsible for their success gives higher education more credit than it deserves." Here as elsewhere, Mr. Ellsberg is describing and then attacking a straw man of his own creation. Few sensible people have ever argued that a college education is solely responsible for the success of talented and motivated individuals; rather, it seems reasonable to argue that a sound education is an important constituent part of the basis for that success.
In preparation for writing his book, Mr. Ellsberg "spent the last two years interviewing college dropouts who went on to become millionaires and billionaires." I presume that he did not interview college graduates who achieved similar financial success because the list was so much longer. His method also begs the question of whether college dropouts are the best source of reliable information about the nature and value of a college education.
So, what did he learn from these interviews?
Well, "our current classrooms... stifle creativity. If a young person happens to retain enough creative spirit to start a business upon graduation, she does so in spite of her schooling, not because of it." "From kindergarten through undergraduate and grad school, you learn very few skills or attitudes that would ever help you start a business. Skills like sales, networking, creativity and comfort with failure." I especially like the kindergarten reference: let's get those blocks and crayons out of those classrooms and begin working on eye contact (about which Mr. Ellsberg wrote an earlier book) and a firm handshake.
It's hard to know where to begin in responding to these contentions -- that tends to be the case when contentions are based on no evidence -- but I want at least to draw attention to Mr. Ellsberg's arguments about creativity, which he appears to believe is an inherent quality that is only diminished by excessive amounts of classroom time. Has he ever been in a lively classroom working with a gifted teacher? I am both a parent and a college president, and I have seen first-hand that the creative abilities of both my children and the students at my institution are far more often enhanced than stifled by the study of art and literature, the pursuit of answers in a laboratory, or a deeper understanding of human history and psychology. To Mr. Ellsberg these are merely "narrowly defined academic subjects" -- as opposed to more practical skills, I would assume, in such areas as sales and networking.
Arguments like Mr. Ellsberg's might simply be dismissed as silly, but these days they are, unhappily, more likely than ever to foster the spread of misinformation and to be used as the basis for terrible public policy proposals. It remains the case that there is not a single example of a society in this or any other age that has improved its economy or strengthened its civic institutions by educating fewer of its people. That isn't as catchy as offering seven easy steps toward becoming a millionaire or billionaire without a college degree (that's the number in Mr. Ellsberg's book), but it is true.
Mr. Ellsberg ends by noting that "I'd put my money on the kids who are dropping out of colleges to start new businesses." Unfortunately the opposite is true: in marketing his Education of Millionaires, he is taking the money of such kids (only $14.99 for the Kindle edition) and delivering to young people who are working hard to get an education exactly the wrong message.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/College-Conspiracy/100530400037409?ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/innovatorsacademy#p/f/7/N2_DY5-0o48
I spent a whole year at college bankrupting my parents only to discover it wasn't for me... When I left I went back to school at a community college where I entered a program that grants "specialized" degrees. When I graduate in a year I will have a skill and a degree that is worth something.
I never would have gotten that from a liberal arts school... True employers love kids with liberals arts education... But in reality while they're well rounded in all the classics and philosophy they lack a tangible skill like me...
how much of what doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, engineers, and scientists learn in undergraduate school is important towards their day-to-day career?
i guarantee you that no more than 10-15% of what they learn is relevant. the other 85-90% is a waste of time and money, yet it's $ the universities need to survive with their wasteful, inefficient and ineffective ways of doing business.
After dropping out of college, I haven't made millions of dollars founding a tech start-up. However, I've managed to earn a comfortable middle-class income with great job security working as a mechanic. I'm lucky in that I've found a job I enjoy that pays a liveable wage. Many of my friends with bachelor's degrees cannot say the same.
Since joining the automotive service workforce, I've come to recognize a massive shortage of intelligent technicians, mechanics and electricians ready to fill the jobs created by today's technologies. While scientists and engineers will create most of the jobs of tomorrow, our economy equally requires skilled tradespeople to fill these jobs.
We need to stop telling our brightest students that a four-year college degree is the only path to success. Today's skilled trades require as much intelligence and creativity as most white-collar careers. However, a mechanic doesn't need an understanding of social constructivism to fix a car. It's time to re-examine the strengths of trade schools and apprenticeships, and reconsider the usefulness of a "well-rounded" education.
what you fail to mention is that there are much more effective and efficient ways to educate young people. case in point, when it comes to law school, why must someone waste four years of their life getting an undergrad degree when everything they learn is in law school???
so tell me mr. college president, when has sitting in a classroom ever emulated the real world??? mentorships, apprenticeships, internships are much, much better ways to learn, but colleges have a monopoly on the current job market credentialing system.
when it all comes down to it colleges and universities care more about making money than properly educating their students at an affordable price.
Perhaps you have not spent much time in a college classroom recently. However, I see lessons that emulate the real world on a daily basis. Students deliver rehearsed speeches and presentations to large audiences, they engage in debates that require an advanced understanding of a subject and they design online platforms that would be incredibly beneficial for small businesses. I could provide you with plenty of additional examples if you wish.
But I strongly suspect they'd disagree with you on which ones.
Furthermore, I have three undergraduate majors and am working on an MFA in Creative Writing. A lot of people thought I wasted a lot of money on the first one because I spent many years working in the field of the second major. But ten years into my career, I was suddenly working in the field of the first. The fact is, if we are blessed, our lives are long, and things are bound to change again and again. Over the years, I have shown that I am more than capable of learning and adjusting to change; these are perhaps the most useful skills I gained through my education, and I gained those via every single course I ever took.