see discussion overview

Related

Is higher education a waste of money?

Categorised in:


For some subjects, yes, since it's possible to provide better-quality teaching for less cost

Higher education is not a waste of time. However it might be a waste of money if you can spend the same time learning equally or more effectively in cheaper ways.

There is no point in paying for the experience of a live lecture. Just watch a video lecture instead. Or just read a book, since it will often explain the subject more clearly than in a lecture. Live lectures are just deeply anachronistic leftovers from a pre-digital age. The fact that they are still the flagship method of teaching in universities is a sign of the amazing power of institutional inertia.

Seminars can sometimes lead to interesting discussions but generally they are too large to allow any one person to make a meaningful argument and very often the majority of participants clearly have no genuine interest in the topic anyway. Many, perhaps most, students are only studying because it's expected of them or because they think they need to to get a desirable job.

The Internet is full of in-depth discussions on all kinds of academic topics by people who know what they're talking about and are deeply passionate about it. In this digital age, what is the point of paying for decidedly lacklustre seminars? If some kind of guidance and/or assessment of the discussion is thought to be necessary, pay for a dedicated assessor/moderator of an online forum. It would be infinitely cheaper than the current arrangement.

The one-on-one feedback from experts is one important assets which isn't easy to get outside university. Lectures and seminars I would be happy to abolish, but personalised expert feedback can be genuinely worthwhile. Often, the feedback is cursory with no opportunity to ask for clarification or depth. However, at most universities, the personalised feedback forms an incredibly meagre portion of the education – a significant number of one-on-one meetings are a luxury only the wealthiest of institutions can afford. Personal feedback could be provided in far greater depth and quantity if it were provided online.

Yes, because the personal and civic development can be provided more effectively for less cost by alternative arrangements

It is often argued that university is about creating a well-rounded people and giving people a special kind of freedom to explore ideas and causes, after the dependency and mental limitations of adolescence and before the grinding responsibility of later adulthood.

I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view; but if this is the point of university, why tie it to academia? Anyone can benefit from something like this, it's not just for people who are willing to spend most of them researching and writing essays. If university existed for personal/civic developments purposes it would be more like a giant summer camp than an advanced version of school, and it would be open to everyone regardless of academic prowess.

Such an experience could be provided at much less cost than the traditional university experience. The focus could be on volunteer schemes partly paid-for by charities, or it could be condensed into one year rather than three.

No, because many employers unfairly discriminate against people without degrees

Universities don't make people hard-working and clever, but only relatively hard-working and clever people get a university degree. So employers find it to be a convenient sorting method.

Many clever and hard-working people do not go to university, but unfortunately many employers find it more convenient to not bother about missing these people.

Of course, as more and more people go to university, employers conditions will become increasingly stringently. Already you usually need a 2:1 or higher. Soon it will be a 2:1 or higher from certain universities. Than you'll need an MA. And then everyone will need to get MAs. And then they'll demand a MA with distinction.

No-one will get any better as an employee because of this of course. But it will successfully waste a lot of time, money and youthful energy and further stigmitise people who haven't gone to university.

Yes, because the networking can be provided more cost-effectively by alternative arrangements

Some people argue that university is worth the expense because of theway it puts people in touch with lots of other curious-minded peoplewho they would never otherwise meet. They emphasise the importance ofthe out-of-class networks that appear on campuses: societies, clubs andfriendship webs. Because university brings together a lot of clever,motivated people, these networks generate an intellectual energy thatmakes them greater than the sum of their parts.

But this is hardly a justificationfor the incredible expense of maintaining universities. If universitiesare useful because they are "brain-dating" clubs, then they should befocused on that and not bother with the facade of education. Adedicated networking service would be more effective at bringing peopletogether and much cheaper since there would be no need to hoist it tothe fortune-consuming paraphernalia of education.
 

I suspect that the key to expanding education to everyone is by changing the definition of “teacher.” When I asked those same people how they learned, they all mentioned peers — other students; study group members and project or lab team members; fraternity brothers; tutors; siblings and parents... Using some form of community-driven Socratic Method, strong incentives beyond self-edification, and a way to measure and certify knowledge, online education will be able to deliver an Ivy League-quality education to anyone with the desire to learn. - Mike Speiser source: http://gigaom.com/2009/08/16/peer-to-peer-education-bringing-elite-education-to-the-masses/

No. Universities exemplify one of the key facets to being human - thirst for knowledge.

Whilst many people go to university simply to 'have a laugh', I did not. My degree was taken seriously and it is one of my regrets that I do not work in a directly related field.

But since the earliest days of humankind we have sought knowledge and are curious by nature. A university is a way of organising and focussing that pursuit of knowledge in order to achieve even more. That was its intended purpose was it not?

Regardless of cost we need to keep universities because they are one of the defining characteristics of who we are, our culture and our academic achievements.

If there is a better way to harness all that universities offer us then I would of course happily agree, but at this time I can not see that there is.

more