For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

I don't buy it either.

While I wouldn't say there is nothing wrong with the higher education system here in the US (and in most of the world), but I don't view my time in college as a waste of time. Some courses, maybe, but I learned a lot during those years and many of the things that I value most from didn't necessarily have a lot to do with the proscribed curriculum.

Exams may be fine for CPAs where accounting practices and principles have barely changed since our parents were in school, but they definitely would not not work for techies. We've already got quite a number of certification programs in technology, and frankly, most of the certificates aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Even those that do mean something are flawed from the standpoint that they don't generally stand the test of time. A college degree, for the most part should be something that retains its value over time. Certifications in technical fields generally do not. The next version of the product, or the next time a new technology comes out they lose value. Almost no certifications awarded more than a few years ago have any meaning at all today. That is evidence that you are right about confusion of training and education. Exams can just mean that people have the ability to cram to pass a test, they don't necessarily have anything to do with ability to retain that knowledge long term or with the ability to continue to adapt, learn and build upon knowledge. I've run into too many "paper tigers" over the years -- people who had 5 or 6 different Novell or Microsoft certs, A+, whatever, that were basically completely useless. They could cram and take tests and pass them, but give them a problem that was even a slight variation of what was on the tests and they didn't have the critical thinking skills to solve it.

WAYNE CASWELL (Technologist, Futurist & Marketing Strategist) in my reply to the author...

I enjoyed your Wall Street Journal article, "For Most People, College is a Waste of Time;" and I look forward to your book, “Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality"

Accredited certification testing may help address the education crisis that I wrote about in response to a NY Times article on “fake college degrees.” I argued that “diploma mills” exist to fill a market need, because the education system isn’t completely meeting needs of workers and employers, especially in these changing times of shorter careers, higher tuition, a tougher economy, employers making shorter-term decisions, and increases in H-1B visas. I too questioned the relevancy of our academic system and the college degree.

My perspective comes as a 30-year retired IBMer with extensive technical, management and personal development training and research experience at IBM that never translated into a masters degree or PhD. That’s only now become a problem as I’ve become a job-seeker, and I welcome more innovative ways to let employers know when candidates are qualified for the jobs they seek.

For fields with little change, like accounting, certification testing could be an answer. One flaw in certification testing, however, is that it could shift emphasis from imparting general knowledge to “teaching the test.” And as a futurist who watched his son Adrian graduate from The University of Texas without ever reading a book, and who sees the exponential pace of innovation and change, I’ve noticed a shift in learning – from “just in case” to “just in time.” Adrian, for example, found it far more effective to go online for many perspectives of a book than to read and interpret it himself, and his ability to “find” the answer has been more important to his success than the ability to “know” the answer.

A second flaw in testing comes with the rapid evolution of technology, where what’s most important is the ability to adapt, learn and innovate. So, I especially like the marketing tagline of St. Edwards University here in Austin – “We teach you to think.” Having attended intense IBM-only classes at Harvard and Princeton, I’ve noticed a marked difference in teaching styles and the quality of education between different universities, so I won’t put down the Ivy League. But on the other hand, I think we do need new ways for workers to continue their education without additional 2- or 4-year college commitments and with an ability to convey their qualifications without a degree.

This harkens back to the days of apprenticeships. The last state to allow lawyers to take the bar exam WITHOUT a JD was Texas! I believe learned, hands on knowledge can be more valuable that sitting in a classroom for 4 years. There are pros and cons of the certificate method (like it does not indicate ability, but how well you can test).

Some of the best engineers I know of were NOT engineers (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Chester Carlson (the inventor of xerography).

There is no substitute for taking knowledge and putting it into action. Degrees from major institutions cannot gauge that, only a track record can.

We seem to agree that knowledge gained through inquisitive exploration and hands-on experience is somehow more real, useful and applicable to problem solving than rote learning. And if that knowledge comes through personal or work experience, without earning college degrees, then we need ways to acknowledge it so employers know which candidates can do the job.

Today's employers often screen out experienced job applicants that lack a specific college degree, because their rich life experiences take too much space on a resume, and we’re trained to keep it short. Once they get a job interview, however, they can embellish their story. But I’m noticing that some excellent resumes without MBAs aren’t generating interviews - another reminder of the importance of personal networking, and the great service that Matt is providing with Door64.

Education is never wasted. While you cannot discount the value of real world experience, and in fact, I believe that real experience is what turns a degree into capability to actually do a job, the concept that college is a waste of time is nothing short of ignorant in my opinion of course.

However, that I have both a BA and MBA plus 35 years of experience in my field, does not eliminate the bias I still run into because I don't have a Ph.D. Yet, "all" a Ph.D. represents is a sign that someone spent the time to specialize in a narrow field of study (and maybe one that has no practical value beyond academia).

What counts most is the ability to think and analyze and problem, and come to a reasonable answer. When I hire someone in the future, while a degree may be the door opener, a demonstrated able to think is what I want.

While a higher degree is required for consideration, when I interview people, I ask thinking questions.

Like this one for example... you
can respond w/ how long it took you to figure it out. Look at your watch.
.
.
.
You have 7 balls, all look the same,
you have a balance scale (like in lawyer pics), 6 balls have equal weight,
one ball is heavier, you have only
2 opportunities to use the scale.

Which ball is the heavier?

Tick, tock, tick, tock...past ten minutes, how long is this supposed to take?