"What a College Education Buys" (excerpts)

<p>February 25, 2007
The Way We Live Now
**What a College Education Buys **
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL</p>

<p>How important is college to Americans? Put it this way: When Philip Zelikow, the State Department counselor who worked often on Israel-Palestine issues, resigned in November, he cited “some truly riveting obligations to college bursars.” That’s how important college is — it’s more important than peace in the Middle East.</p>

<p>The Democrats’ promise last fall to make college more affordable for the middle class was a no-lose gambit. It pleased everybody. When the new majority voted in January to halve the interest rate on federally guaranteed student loans, 124 Republicans joined them. “I just think that we need more of our kids going to school,” said Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican. But given that 45 percent of U.S. high-school graduates already enroll in four-year colleges, how dire can this “need” be? </p>

<p>Certain influential Americans have begun to reassert the old wisdom that a college education is one of those things, like sky diving and liverwurst, that are both superb and not for everybody. Not long ago, the conservative social scientist Charles Murray wrote a three-part series in The Wall Street Journal in which he attacked the central assumption behind President George Bush’s No Child Left Behind initiative. The idea that “educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder” is a costly wrong impression, he wrote. Not all schoolchildren have the intellectual capacity to reach “basic achievement” levels. In college, similar limitations apply. The number of Americans with the brains to master the most challenging college classes, Murray argued, is probably closer to 15 percent than to 45.</p>

<p>Of course, part of the reason Americans think everyone should go to college is for its noneducational uses. Anyone can benefit from them. Colleges are the country’s most effective marriage brokers. They are also — assuming you don’t study too hard — a means of redistributing four years’ worth of leisure time from the sad stub-end of life to the prime of it. (Just as youth shouldn’t be wasted on the young, retirement shouldn’t be wasted on the old.) </p>

<p>But the price of college long ago outstripped the value of these goods. The most trustworthy indicator that an American college education is something worthwhile is that parents nationwide — and even worldwide — are eager to pay up to $180,000 to get one for their children. This is a new development. A quarter-century ago, even the top Ivy League schools were a bargain at $10,000 a year, but they received fewer applications than they do now (…)</p>

<p>These numbers don’t tell us much about how people get educated at a typical American college. You can go to college to get civilized (in the sense that your thoughts about your triumphs and losses at the age of 55 will be colored and deepened by an encounter with Horace or Yeats at the age of 19). Or you can go there to get qualified (in the sense that Salomon Brothers will snap you up, once it sees your B.A. in economics from M.I.T.). Most often, parents must think they are paying for the latter product. Great though Yeats may be, 40-some-odd thousand seems a steep price to pay for his acquaintance (…)</p>

<p>In recent decades, the biggest rewards have gone to those whose intelligence is deployable in new directions on short notice, not to those who are locked into a single marketable skill, however thoroughly learned and accredited. Most of the employees who built up, say, Google in its early stages could never have been trained to do so, because neither the company nor the idea of it existed when they were getting their educations. Under such circumstances, it’s best not to specialize too much. Something like the old ideal of a “liberal education” has had a funny kind of resurgence (…)</p>

<p>Maybe college cannot become much more accessible. The return on college degrees must eventually fall as more people get them, and probably not everyone wants one. In France, people often refer to their education as a “formation.” The word implies that an increase in your specialized capabilities is bought at a price in flexibility and breadth of knowledge. In most times and places, this bitter trade-off is worth it. But for the past few years at least, the particular advantage of an American degree has been that it doesn’t qualify you to do anything in particular.</p>

<p>Christopher Caldwell is a contributing writer for the magazine.</p>

<p>Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company </p>

<p><a href=“http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/02/25/magazine/1154666102210.html[/url]”>http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/02/25/magazine/1154666102210.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Google guys had lots of specialized knowledge and just applied it to a not so new application with a better mousetrap. I can guarantee this will be their first and last BIG great killer idea. Very few who start new companies start more than one successfully. Bill Gates is still waiting for great idea #2. Edison might have been an exception but we were just becoming modern then and there were many more needs.</p>

<p>barrons, I was thinking the same thing about google when I then read your post. Page, Brin and their first employees had tons of specialized knowledge.</p>

<p>I do think the debate pitting the liberal arts against the career directed degree is unfortunate. Both definitely have their place in higher education and one is not necessarily superior to the other. They are merely different.</p>

<p>Gifted writers as well as gifted architects should inspire us. An eminant historian gives us interesting glimpses into the past while a eminant computer scientist ushers us into a realm which yesterday was only a future dream.</p>

<p>And getting back to the OP, a talented plumber or auto mechanic is often more important to us than either the historian, writer, compscientist or architect.</p>