Print This
Email ThisAs I have indicated before, I love my college experience mainly because of what it exposed me to and the kind of woman it has allowed me to become. My life has been enriched immensely because of the mentors and friends that I met and I wouldn’t trade the last four years for anything. However, there is a growing demand for more concrete examples of the importance of college. In the end, people are asking, “Is college necessary for us to become competent and competitive citizens?”
When it comes to job related skills you never learn how to do a job until you actually do it. No amount of schooling can show you how to become a lawyer, doctor, teacher, or any other profession until you are on site getting your hands dirty. But school has rarely been about tangible skills—it has been about capital; acquiring the networks, credentials, and mannerisms necessary to give you a foot in the door. People (not just employers) use it as a screening mechanism to assess intelligence. This practice is done with good reason: while two-thirds of all jobs require a college degree, a little more than a quarter of those who start school actually finishes, making a college degree seem that much more impressive.
At the same time, I can think of no other place where skill development is easier than in college. My alma mater practically threw money at us to secure internships, start clubs, and implement programs (locally, nationally, and abroad). The job I landed in New York never once asked for my transcript; rather they asked me about experiences where I was in the lead, where I had to take control of an issue, or where I was creative and innovative when addressing a problem. I had amazing experiences in college because I took my college’s money (and networks) and got my hands dirty as much as I could. Unlike the “real world” where failing projects and programs cost tons of money and time, in college the consequences are less dramatic making it an ideal place to cultivate leadership through trial and error.
College seems useless because the emphasis is on the content, rather than the process and the application of knowledge. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with theory, for example. However, requiring me to memorize a theory and recite it in a way that is pleasing to the professor is pointless. Why not take that theory and require that I apply it through an internship at a local organization? Or have me critique a theory using data and field work? And if the goal is to have me develop important skills such as critical thinking, then historical events must be examined next to current events to assess patterns and thus making knowledge more relevant.
At the end of the day, the world is changing and colleges must redefine their role in it as we as a nation struggle to redefine the importance of education overall. On the one hand, we view education as the “great equalizer”; yet if this is true the exorbitant prices of a college education must be addressed. If college is crucial for a successful future, then the discussions need to focus on retention, not just recruitment. There seems to be resistance and a desire to stick to older notions of the importance of the academy, like knowledge for the sake of knowledge or college being a place of camaraderie and fun. The former are important yet must work well with a sense of preparation for the world that lay ahead.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Great article and you are so right. Our young people are changing and our system needs to catch up and quick!
Sarah
Intriguing post. “College seems useless because the emphasis is on the content, rather than the process and the application of knowledge.”
I believe that content is what sets universities and colleges apart from other programs. If I have two candidates, one with a technology degree and one with an engineering degree I will assume that the candidate with the engineering degree has learned much more of the theory and would be able to design and item that the technician would only be able to implement because s/he lacked the theory (content).
Speaking from my own experience, I agree that there is a large percentage of students who are unprepared for the ‘real world’. I believe a majority of the student body is this way at many campuses. I did not realize this until I became involved with the career services department on my campus. Many students don’t believe that learning is a continuous process, and most learning is done outside the class room. Many students utilize career services, but the ones who really need it don’t come because they either don’t believe that they need it or are unwilling to give up their time because they don’t realize the benefits. The university provides this to prepare students for the ‘real world’ but should the University be at fault if students don’t use it?
I believe that most administrators see this issue of not being prepared as an academic deficit and the solution as one which can be taught in the classroom; its not. It is the exact opposite.
The Universities should be responsible for teaching ‘real world’ skills and providing opportunities to implement these, but if the students aren’t willing to take that extra step they are sending the message back to the university that they need more content to feel prepared and perpetuating this circle of over-education and under preparation.
I agree with you and I think that change is on the horizon, but it will take both students and educators to reach it.
@Jessica: I agree with you-students need be proactive in their learning and not expect everything to be handed to them. My college had tons of money to give to students but not many took them which is very unfortunate.
At the same time, is it too much to ask that active learning be built into the curriculum? Currently passive learning appears to be the norm, as evidenced in large lectures where only a test determines your understanding of material. Having someone tell me who Marx is does not have the same results as me applying Marx’s theories and challenging them through real world situations.
What a well written post!
Like pretty much everyone out there, when I graduated, I found out that I was (almost) completely unprepared for the real workplace. But the degree helped me get a job for which I wasn’t qualified for. The degree literally opened that door for me. The degree that I earned demonstrated that I had potential, and I learned the skills on the job.
The money spent on college bought me a certain status. Also, I definitely got my bang for the buck in terms of that special college experience. All that was worth a few grand in loans. But I do think that colleges could benefit from introducing some courses with an emphasis on practial skill development (as part of the minimim requirements for any degree).
College is definitely the most overrated (and over-priced) product I can think of. I learned a lot in college… but not because of classes. Because of mentors I sat down with and student organizations I was involved with.
Our first day on the job, the company tells us that “You retain 10% of what you learn in college…. You’ll learn 70% of what you need to know on the job.”
That was just my undergrad experience… Do you have any thoughts on what grad school might be like?
@ Andy: From what I’ve noticed about graduate school, there is more focus in order to prepare you for your career. Youll still learn foundational theory, I’m sure, but you have to apply it.
@Ulyana: There is prestige with a degree (especially degrees from certain institutions). Part of me often wonders though if the basis is status because of its limited accessibility how can education actually level the playing field?