"I Love College"

[It is Fake]

especially when godlun went to the trouble and mentioned what I was thinking.

Translation:

"Hey, you should know that goodlun speaks for what I am thinking."

[jubei33]

Well, he posted it faster in any case, lucky him.

[Rivington]

No, actually that's not what I said.

This is you:

I don't appreciate the dilettante idealism of education for the sake of education. I think it is a marketing gimmick at the expense of the real purpose of getting specialized skills in an area of work that interests you.

How, exactly, is that different than "colleges teach liberal arts as a dilletantish marketing gimmick"? Note that the context of "education for the sake of education" was your references to "the humanities end of the spectrum" and to the terrifying notion of "half a million dudes" with a "rudimentary understanding" of sociology. Humanities and social sciences—and pure sciences, btw—are the liberal arts.

He was studying sculpture.

So? Sculptors don't need to have a sense of min-maxing—either in the production of their work, or in the business side of taking commissions and selling pieces? Sculptors need no knowledge of curves? Sculptors can't be inspired by mathematics and science?

Here's what your dopey pal missed when he complained about having to take Calc—if he already knew what he needed to know, he wouldn't need to be in college. He can have whatever plan he likes, but walking in to school, he has no idea what knowledge his plans will actually require.

Sculptors regularly involve themselves in curve-sketching, in creating pieces of public art that don't collapse on the heads of a third-grade field trip (we hope!), and in deciding what to make out of $X amount of marble (one big piece or three little ones...), and a rudimentary understanding of calculus is useful for all those things. A rudimentary knowledge of sociology is also handy when selecting subjects or commissions for sculpture, or in dealing with the social class that most often buys art (rich people you're not gonna meet otherwise), or in the creation of public art that won't arouse the ire of the locals who have to walk past it every day.

The problem in general is that your understanding of the utility of college is too narrow. Even if purely vocational, students are not well-served by only training them in what businesses want.

For one thing, what businesses want change. Businesses don't necessarily know what they want. Thirty years ago, they were keen on Japanese speakers. Whoops, now they want Mandarin speakers!

For another, students often go on to work for non-businesses: NGOs, governments, etc. And these organizations don't know what they want. Thirty years ago, they were keen on Russian speakers. Whoops, now they need Arabic speakers!

For another, students often go on to start their own businesses.

For another—and this goes beyond the vocational—nobody graduates college and then goes right to work, then right home to sleep. There's a little something called life, within a complex of cultures and politics and expressions, that we actually have to navigate. College is one way to get really good at that sort of thing, and only a great fool would think it's an exercise in dilettantism.


You're right that college is expensive, but that problem is distinct from the idea that colleges are somehow "marketing" a series of boring classes that most students resent because they just want to go back to the dorm, get on 4chan, masturbate into one of their roommate's socks, and then take a nap.

[jubei33]

Yeah, I think you misread the other posts back a few pages. That portion, at least, was in reference to GECs (specifically historical survey and PE, etc) and their limited usefulness towards getting a job in a given field. It was a reply to the point that education is its own end, which I don't feel is a good argument for the added cost and loss of time in the face of your own pursuits and purpose for going. This is different from your blanket statement of "the liberal arts suck" or whatever.

The other post also detailed a scheme that would make life long learning more of a realistic proposition and ideally more open to everyone.

So?

[Rivington]

Yeah, I think you misread the other posts back a few pages.

I didn't misread anything. I was taking issue with what I quoted, and which you denied saying.

If you think the balance of your comments somehow change the meaning of the text I quoted, well, you're mistaken. You should have practiced your rhetoric. Indeed, perhaps nobody asked you about the fall of Rome in a job interview, but clearly there are bits of life where the liberal arts help.

It was a reply to the point that education is its own end, which I don't feel is a good argument for the added cost and loss of time in the face of your own pursuits and purpose for going.

Right, and my counter-argument demonstrated that your vision, even on the vocational level, was too narrow. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not liberal arts make one a better citizen or a better human being, they clearly help people in all manner of jobs as well, including in specific the example you gave of a sculptor.

This is different from your blanket statement of "the liberal arts suck" or whatever.

Transparently it is not. I am responding to your text—first your claim that GEC is a "marketing gimmick" not to what you imagined you wrote.

The other post also detailed a scheme that would make life long learning more of a realistic proposition and ideally more open to everyone.

You seem to have no idea what the words "detailed" or "scheme", or for that matter "realistic" mean.

[W. Rabbit]

Am I the only person who is shocked that there isn't a professional beer pong circuit yet?

You're the only one.

http://www.beerpong.com/wsobp

[goodlun]

You're the only one.

http://www.beerpong.com/wsobp

Now we just need the NCAA to recognize it as a sport and than we have a road to beer pong scholarships.

[goodlun]

This is why those math classes are still important even though we have calculators. The correct answer btw is 1.

[itwasntme]

This is why those math classes are still important even though we have calculators. The correct answer btw is 1.

I'd argue we just need Casio brand calculators.

[Mr. Machette]

This is why those math classes are still important even though we have calculators. The correct answer btw is 1.

Can you give me a quick algebra tutorial on this? My brain is making the same mistake as that TI 82.

6/2(2+1)

6/2(3)
3(3)

3*3 = 9

What am I missing here? (It looks like you go from 3(3) to 3/3 which tells me there's some principal or basic rule that I've forgotten.)

Sorry if I sound like a dumb ass. Just trying to avoid a slip into early senility and I haven't done any algebra in at least five years.