The Purposes of Higher Education

[H. Caulfeild]

I was wondering if i could get some of your thoughts on the purposes of higher education. Whether it's useful or not, whether it's a waste of time, if the students really want to be in college, are they really learning anything there.

We've been talking about it in my english class and it seems (after reading what i have) that the average college student doesn't really care about what they're learning, but are more interested in the end result, that they don't actually think they will use the information that's being given them.

The discussion was prompted by Paolo Freire, an author and educator (Pedagogy of the Opressed) and he talks about a "banking model of education, wherein the teacher gives the students information, and they regurgitate it back onto the test. The issue of what to do with the information seems irrelevant to both the student and the teacher.

Just wondering if i could get some thoughts on the subject...thanks...

[Star_Anise]

It's interesting that you bring this up, HC, as I've been having some interesting conversations in regards to the topic lately. My own motivation for going to university was to gain new skills and have access to ideas and ways of thinking I may not have otherwise encountered. Yet I have also known many students who were only there to get a degree, so they could get on track to a high-paying job. This seems to vary by discipline a lot, not just by individual. PR and marketing students are a breed of their own, in my experience. As far as I am concerned, higher education is about the experience and the pursuit of knowledge as much (or more than) qualifications, (as they say here, P's make degrees, but they don't make me happy). I have seen some TV shows and read a few articles that say we have moved much more towards a consumer model of education, which I think is evident in some ways - some unis have massive marketing divisions, and it's a great feeling knowing that a good percentage of your fees are going towards ads on buses...

[eflo]

Being out of University now, the best advice I can give is that the purpose of higher education or any education is as follows:

Both parties (student and teacher) are there to learn from one another. The student's purpose is not to regurgitate the information back to the teacher. While this will certainly yield passing grades in most instances, it will almost never guarantee the highest grade. Rather, the role of the student is to challenge and contest as well as enhance the ideas of the professor and his/her fellow students. I think this goes equally at any educational level.

The best thing about University is sometimes not knowing what is expected of you from a professor, tossing and turning the assignment over in your mind, and doing something independently and what seems on a tangent compared to what was assigned, turning it in with some uncertainty, and getting it back with a good grade. Completely different from grade school where deviation is typically discouraged...at least for me.

[H. Caulfeild]

my thanks to the both of you for your replies, i was slightly disappointed there wasn't a different view than this, for my own educational benefit.
but if i may ask one more question that i think links to this subject.

Do you believe that there is a lack of values education within the public schools? (from middle school through college)

[Marlow]

Do you believe that there is a lack of values education within the public schools? (from middle school through college)

Probably, but I'm sure we would all have a fight over which values to teach. ;)

As to your question above, by higher education do you mean undergrad college or graduate school? If college, then absolutely. Today in the US the unemployment rate for college grads is less than half the unemployment rate overall. And while people talk of income disparity, the big disparity is between those who have a degree and those that don't. In today's world, it really is important that one gets a college degree.

As to grad school, it's arguable whether it's worth it. The two years it takes to get a Master's degree, one would have earned $70 - 80 thousand. Now you don't get much more for having a masters so it would take a bit of time to make that up. But on the other hand, a person with a master's might get promoted faster so eventually it will pay off. Best thing I figure is if you think you need a masters, get a job first, work for a few years, and then try to do it at night part time.

[H. Caulfeild]

Probably, but I'm sure we would all have a fight over which values to teach. ;)


well sure, but if there isn't a basic value system in place, there's no reason that students should respect their teachers or what their teachers teach them. i would think that any "classroom rules" would lose their meaning if there is no reasoning behind them.
the reason i bring it up is i just read an essay by David Riesman, he was a sociologist back in the 1950's who observed that people who didn't believe in concrete values or believed that values had somehow gotten lost, that these people have problems when it comes to making decisions and self-evaluation. i see these traits in students a lot these days. especially in myself.

[Marlow]

the reason i bring it up is i just read an essay by David Riesman, he was a sociologist back in the 1950's who observed that people who didn't believe in concrete values or believed that values had somehow gotten lost, that these people have problems when it comes to making decisions and self-evaluation. i see these traits in students a lot these days. especially in myself.

Good Lord, I've met so many, especially Europeans, on the internet that fit this catagory. It's one thing to be a skeptic, but I'm amazed how many younger people are nihilists. It used to be that one starts as an idealist and then slowly through experience reaches a sense of realism. Today's youths seem to start with pessimism and progress onward. Just listen to some of the music. In the old days rebelliousness was for a different/better world. Today rebelliousness seems to be for some apocalyptic disaster. At least that's my impression.

[eflo]

my thanks to the both of you for your replies, i was slightly disappointed there wasn't a different view than this, for my own educational benefit.
but if i may ask one more question that i think links to this subject.

Do you believe that there is a lack of values education within the public schools? (from middle school through college)
With the right balance between a teacher/student relationship, the teacher will bring a topic of discussion to class and the students can bring up ideas and topics of their own. I think the best classrooms are open conversations between the classroom and the teacher.

A teacher can only go so far in teaching something. Not all learning takes place in the classroom, and students should bring their experiences from outside the classroom into the classroom to share with others and the teacher. Teachers bring their experiences to the class all the time or an anonymous story that teaches a valuable lesson, and unfortunately, I've seen it too many times when a student perceives the teachers as off his/her rocker in sharing these stories and experiences.

It must be tough being a teacher. In order to open up discussion on a tough subject, s/he has to make himself or herself vulnerable...in which case the student can respond and open up the discussion or the students can not respond so well and create an awkward discussion.

[H. Caulfeild]

Good Lord, I've met so many, especially Europeans, on the internet that fit this catagory. It's one thing to be a skeptic, but I'm amazed how many younger people are nihilists. It used to be that one starts as an idealist and then slowly through experience reaches a sense of realism. Today's youths seem to start with pessimism and progress onward. Just listen to some of the music. In the old days rebelliousness was for a different/better world. Today rebelliousness seems to be for some apocalyptic disaster. At least that's my impression.
Hehe...i'm far from being a nihilist, in fact, i abhor the thought, it's too depressing for me. I'm sorry you got that impression from what i said.
That's an intersting view of my generation though, how we start off being pessimistic and progress (or transgress) onward toward rebelling to the point of self-destruction. Maybe it's because we were raised by a generation of realists. Now don't assume i'm blaming my parent's generation for our own problems, i'm trying to find a way out of our dilemma. The dilemma being our constant state of depression.


A teacher can only go so far in teaching something. Not all learning takes place in the classroom, and students should bring their experiences from outside the classroom into the classroom to share with others and the teacher. Teachers bring their experiences to the class all the time or an anonymous story that teaches a valuable lesson, and unfortunately, I've seen it too many times when a student perceives the teachers as off his/her rocker in sharing these stories and experiences.

It must be tough being a teacher. In order to open up discussion on a tough subject, s/he has to make himself or herself vulnerable...in which case the student can respond and open up the discussion or the students can not respond so well and create an awkward discussion.
so do you think that teachers aren't opening up discussion in fear of exposing themselves to their students?

[yyz]

My further education is to help me get a good career afterwards. Otherwise I would be studying something that interested me more, probably philosophy, not that I don't enjoy what I study now mind. I could never invest the hundreds of hours necessary in something that I didn't enjoy even a little no matter the promises or riches at the end.

[Aluscardum]

Before school (university) started this September, I was working on an article for the school's paper identifying the five types of students that can be found in university today. I eventually scrapped the project, though, because I had no idea where to go with it. Regardless, from my observations, there are five types of students:

5. Hedonists: Those students who go to university/college solely for the sake of sex, drugs, &c.
4. Pecuniary Students: Those who attend university/college solely for the purpose of someday acquiring a good job.
(These types of students make up the lowest species of student, because they have confused the purpose of the university, and because of it, their motives for attending are also wrong.)
3. Parental Pleasers: These students attend university/college for the sake of making their parents, or guardians, happy.
2. The Perpetual Child: These students attend university/college for no other reason, than the fact that they are scared to do anything else with life; viz., school is familiar to them, which makes university/college the safest option after completing highschool.
(These students make up the second tier of students. They have some idea of the university's true purpose -- even if that idea is an abstract one. However, their motives for attending are still wrong.)
1. The True Student: This student (the rarest) attends university for the sake of being connected to the greater themes of existence. He attends solely for the sake of knowledge, and the understanding that nothing beneficial (money, pleasure, &c.) may come from this, except for the expansion of his intelligence.



If you are really interested in the nature of the student, the late Allan Bloom wrote an excellent book (1984-85-ish, I believe,) called The Closing of the American Mind, that describes the negative progression which Bloom observed in his students, over the course of his career at Cornel University. The book is very polemic (and he was certainly out of left field on some points,) but it ultimately, I would say, touches on something great.

[Jez]

Before school (university) started this September, I was working on an article for the school's paper identifying the five types of students that can be found in university today. I eventually scrapped the project, though, because I had no idea where to go with it. Regardless, from my observations, there are five types of students:

5. Hedonists: Those students who go to university/college solely for the sake of sex, drugs, &c.
4. Pecuniary Students: Those who attend university/college solely for the purpose of someday acquiring a good job.
(These types of students make up the lowest species of student, because they have confused the purpose of the university, and because of it, their motives for attending are also wrong.)
3. Parental Pleasers: These students attend university/college for the sake of making their parents, or guardians, happy.
2. The Perpetual Child: These students attend university/college for no other reason, than the fact that they are scared to do anything else with life; viz., school is familiar to them, which makes university/college the safest option after completing highschool.
(These students make up the second tier of students. They have some idea of the university's true purpose -- even if that idea is an abstract one. However, their motives for attending are still wrong.)
1. The True Student: This student (the rarest) attends university for the sake of being connected to the greater themes of existence. He attends solely for the sake of knowledge, and the understanding that nothing beneficial (money, pleasure, &c.) may come from this, except for the expansion of his intelligence.



If you are really interested in the nature of the student, the late Allan Bloom wrote an excellent book (1984-85-ish, I believe,) called The Closing of the American Mind, that describes the negative progression which Bloom observed in his students, over the course of his career at Cornel University. The book is very polemic (and he was certainly out of left field on some points,) but it ultimately, I would say, touches on something great.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I really need to take issue with what you're claiming here. Particularly your assertion that:


4. Pecuniary Students: Those who attend university/college solely for the purpose of someday acquiring a good job.
(These types of students make up the lowest species of student, because they have confused the purpose of the university, and because of it, their motives for attending are also wrong.) and the absolutes you seem to be making.

Can't a student be both attending to learn as well as attending to acquire a job? Would there be a problem with this? It also seems like you have a bit of an idealistic, and unrealistic, sense of what a university is like. All courses are not taught by brilliant professors, all subjects are not interesting to all students (even "real" or "good" students), and not all courses are structured in a way as to promote true learning. It seems that you're being a bit unfair and judgmental. Granted I could be misunderstanding your meaning.

[Aluscardum]

Hmm, I didn't look at it like that, but I think you are right. I am very idealistic about the purpose of the university. It is true what you say, though, that all "courses are not taught by brilliant professors, all subjects are not interesting to all students (even "real" or "good" students), and not all courses are structured in a way as to promote true learning."

However, I don't think my generalizations are particularly far-fetched. Certainly someone can use their degree to get a good job, but I don't believe that that should be the reason for attending higher education. I kind of look at it from a purist model, i.e., education for education's sake. It is perhaps naive, though...

[Jez]

Ok. I'd say that the generalizations are incorrect in that they state "solely". I think without that word they'd be more accurate, or if there were categories of crossover. Getting a degree for the purpose of a job is, I think, a fine reason, assuming of course that they are appreciating the knowledge they are gaining (assuming again that they are gaining knowledge). To say that it is always the basest of all reasons is, I think, unfair.

I think I do understand the student you are referencing though when you made that category- that is, the student who doesn't care about the classes, has no interest in gaining knowledge, and only wants the paper that will come at the end of their just-enough-to-skate-by effort. That student is frustrating on so many levels, not the least of which the facts that they take up seats in a class others may wish to attend and they may, and often, disrupt class.

Some jobs do, however, require a certain degree. So for many students, I am sure, their goal is to learn the skills they will need in their job, get the degree they need for their job, and learn the information because it is interesting to them and for the sake of learning. This student is, in my opinion, the best because they are not only benefiting themselves by gaining an education, but they are also benefiting others by becoming a productive member of society.

[Aluscardum]

Hmm, you caught me in an awkward position. I've never looked at it from a teleological perspective ("This student is, in my opinion, the best because they are not only benefiting themselves by gaining an education, but they are also benefiting others by becoming a productive member of society.")

However, I do encounter a (very) large number of the students you spoke of previously, which I think in this case has made my opinion both biased and reactionary, whish is not the best way to approach things.


An item of clarification, though: I didn't mean that the types are absolutes. Certainly people move around (especially as they progress through their academic careers.) I, for instance, would have quite clearly been a Type-2 student, which I think has disolved greatly now that I have some idea about what I want out of my education.

[Jez]

I'm not sure I'd say I'm advocating a teleological position...perhaps more simply a logical one. :)

Unfortunately I've also encountered many of the diploma-only students. Do you think that their numbers are increasing with both the increased degree requirements jobs place on candidates and the increased costs of universities?

To your clarification- by absolutes I meant more that a student can fall into multiple categories at the same time, rather than that a student can evolve from one category to another (as I understand your clarification to mean?)

[Makhaya]

Well, I always thought (c.f. Eagleton) that the idea (I'm not sure I like the word "purpose") behind institutions of higher learning was to have a space relatively free of real-life pressures so as to make it possible to engage in a kind of critique and dialogue that is impossible outside it.

[Rubeskies]

I'll give you all a purely economic reason for the purpose of higher education. I'm not saying this is the entire picture but I think it offers a huge insight into our society's "emphasis" on higher education.

In the 1700s, school was optional. Jobs were plentiful on the family farm and kids worked as soon as they were able. In the 1800s, with the industrial revolution and the rise of urban centers and unprecedented population growth, jobs became less plentiful. Also during this time, kids starting going to school more, say through about 5th grade. After that they would generally enter the workforce.

During the late 1800s, early 1900s, the population rose even more and the economy and job market lagged behind. So kids started getting more schooling, often staying through middle school, 8th grade or so. Also around this time, life expectancy drastically rose due to better medical care and sanitation. People lived and worked longer in life. In the mid 1900's, the job market lagged even farther behind and more and more kids were staying through high school. Also, people lived even longer and retired later.

Fast forward to today. Today high school is mandatory and a growing majority go to undergrad school. Now, more and more jobs are requiring a graduate degree and many require 2.

What is my conclusion? Kids were put in school to keep them out of the job market. There were not enough jobs so in order to keep them out of the workforce so that there were enough jobs for everyone, we require more schooling. And even with our unbelievable amount of schooling these days (some people are in school till they are 30!), we still have unemployment. The population is rising too fast for the job market to keep up with and schooling will continue to increase unless the population stabilizes.


This doesn't mean I don't see the value in higher education. I'm about to graduate with a degree in english lit and a minor in philosophy a month from now. But from a societal standpoint, it is a holding ground for potential workers to keep them from saturating the job market.

[G.K Chesterton]

My Professor holding many sheets of paper said, "If you want A's I could just give you a slip of paper and write a bunch of A's on it. Here you go." His point was that the purpose of education is more than just getting good grades or getting a good job. I agree that it is being connected with "the greater themes of existence." As Alan Bloom argues in "The Closing of the American Mind." True education is an education that is tied to virtue.

In Niel Postman's book, Technopoly - says Confucius advocated teaching "The Way" because in tradition he saw best hope for social order. Plato, wished education to produce philosopher kings. Cicero, argued education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson, purpose of education was to teach the young how to protect their liberities. E.D Hirsch, book "Cultural Literacy attempted to answer the question, "What is an educated person? But, left unanswered the question what is education for?

John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know you"

Education is not an end in itself but a means to a end, which is ultimately knowing God.

[Jez]

You've read Postman? Have you read anything other then Technopoly (which I haven't read)? I've got a thread on him somewhere here if you're interested. Or anyone else for that matter.

[G.K Chesterton]

I read "Technopoly" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Yea, sure I would love to see the thread. You ever read Os Guiness?

[Jez]

No, I haven't. I have read Amusing Ourselves to Death. I'm not sure where the thread is. Maybe non-fiction.

[Miss-Eitikate]

Do you want to do it or not?
I think you know your circumstances and all.

I also think you can't get enough of education. Too much info to be known,

I say go for it. wont hurt you know, at least would get you knowledge ... better job??