Quote:
|
everyone who has been arguing with you in this thread is pointing out that this betrays your means-to-an-end view of education. for a lot of people, education is more of an end in itself than a means to an end. until you can concede that point, i don't think we have that much to discuss.
|
Uh, I concede
precisely nothing because the facts bear me out. When I say "real-world", you and I both know that I am talking about marketability, and the fact is, employers don't really pay a premium for 'rigor'. I wish they did. Sadly, they do not. After all, compare the salaries of the engineers coming out of (relatively relaxed) Stanford vs. those coming out of (rigorous) MIT or Caltech. The difference is miniscule.
Now, if you say that some people pursue rigor for its own sake, I have always agreed that this is true. But what is inescapable is that there is probably going to be no real-world, that is to say, no tangible market, benefit. In other words, you would pursue rigor because you value it
for its own sake, not because you actually think it will translate into an advantage in the market.
Again, I doubt that this is a controversial point.