• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is College Bull****? I think it is.

I don't know what it's like in other fields, but in fine arts (jewelry/metals in particular), you attend college to learn a large number of techniques. For the number of things you are introduced to, it's actually cheaper to go to college than take workshops. (As workshops, especially with techniques in gold, can easily run over a thousand bucks. And that's to learn -one- thing.) Also, you get the exposure to visiting artists and lectures, organized by your college.

Furthermore, you get to meet other undergraduate and graduate students from your field, as well as your prof. (s). These individuals are often helpful in finding jobs in such a small field. The above-mentioned prof. also has a tendency to require you to attend conferences, expositions and sales that deal with your trade.

The college also has a well-equipped studio with variety of set-ups and machines, something that no beginning metalworker could afford.

Basically, college isn't necessary, but you get to make connections and dedicate a lot of time to developing an important job-skill, something you can't do if you're working at a fast food restaurant full time. Also, I didn't even know there -was- a metals major before college, and most people in the said college still don't know it exists.

(Yes! Metals seniors! All four of us!)
 
Last edited:
Ah, I remember back 13 years or so, when I used to say things like "getting a degree is a waste of time, it doesn't prove anything, yada yada".

Then I grew up and saw how the world actually worked.

Then I started a business and really got a clue.

Depending on the subject, a degree may or may not give you the knowledge you need to do a job (medicine, it does. Marketing, it doesn't), but it says the following to a prospective employer:

"By getting this degree, I, the job candidate, have proven that I can commit to a project over a period of several years. I have proven that I can take information supplied to me, analyse and understand it, and present my analysis and understanding in a way that can easily be understood. I have learned to express my arguments through the written form, and I have learned to communicate with my peers and my superiors. I can demonstrate long and short-term planning, and I can prove that I produce quality work to deadline. I have demonstrated that I can work on my own initiative, and adapt to feedback."

All of that, in one piece of paper. To demonstrate all of that without the piece of paper is a lot of work.

Now, that's not to say that the subject studied bears any relation to the actual job required. For example, I run a Marketing business, but am less likely to employ someone with a marketing degree and no experience, than someone with, say, an English degree and a few years working experience in a Marketing department. That is because I am familiar with the content of academic Marketing courses and they usually bear no relation to the actual discipline. They are mostly theoretical, and you simply won't get to use an Ansoff's Matrix in 99% of Marketing jobs in the real world.

But, I would be reluctant to employ someone who has no degree at all, because they would not be able to prove they are capable of commitment, working to deadlines, working within a hierarchy, communication via different media, etc. If they have 10 years experience and no degree, fine. They have proved the above through their references, portfolio and working history. But if someone comes to me and says "I'm really smart and really capable, but I just don't see the point of proving it via a degree. Give me a job!", I will be unlikely to.
 
More about how absurd Larsens claim that you could 'go to college' for a little over $2,000.


  1. The source he posted is old(or wong). The prices have increased by at least $1000 on a number of the colleges mentioned.
  2. It only includes 1 year for undergraduates.
  3. The cheapest one was the University of Nevada offering 1 year for $2,682. This is for a Bachelor degree. You need at least 3 years to complete a Bachelor degree.($8,046) but usually 4 years($10,728)
  4. If you wanted to become a Lawyer for instance you would need to pursue another 4 years of college in law school. Most of the schools referenced in his source who have law schools, The tuition is nearly 4 times more than that for incoming undergraduates. So let's round it down to $8,000 per year. Around $32,000 for a 4 year degree at the law schools referenced.
  5. That's about $42,000 and this is from the CHEAPEST schools in the country. And remember as i've mentioned..The prices have increased (Either that or simply incorrect)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Cutcollegecosts/P125902.asp



So about his claim that 'college costs just $2,682' was simply another lie.
 
tkingdoll said:
Ah, I remember back 13 years or so, when I used to say things like "getting a degree is a waste of time, it doesn't prove anything, yada yada".

Then I grew up and saw how the world actually worked.

Then I started a business and really got a clue.

Depending on the subject, a degree may or may not give you the knowledge you need to do a job (medicine, it does. Marketing, it doesn't), but it says the following to a prospective employer:

"By getting this degree, I, the job candidate, have proven that I can commit to a project over a period of several years. I have proven that I can take information supplied to me, analyse and understand it, and present my analysis and understanding in a way that can easily be understood. I have learned to express my arguments through the written form, and I have learned to communicate with my peers and my superiors. I can demonstrate long and short-term planning, and I can prove that I produce quality work to deadline. I have demonstrated that I can work on my own initiative, and adapt to feedback."

All of that, in one piece of paper. To demonstrate all of that without the piece of paper is a lot of work.

Now, that's not to say that the subject studied bears any relation to the actual job required. For example, I run a Marketing business, but am less likely to employ someone with a marketing degree and no experience, than someone with, say, an English degree and a few years working experience in a Marketing department. That is because I am familiar with the content of academic Marketing courses and they usually bear no relation to the actual discipline. They are mostly theoretical, and you simply won't get to use an Ansoff's Matrix in 99% of Marketing jobs in the real world.

But, I would be reluctant to employ someone who has no degree at all, because they would not be able to prove they are capable of commitment, working to deadlines, working within a hierarchy, communication via different media, etc. If they have 10 years experience and no degree, fine. They have proved the above through their references, portfolio and working history. But if someone comes to me and says "I'm really smart and really capable, but I just don't see the point of proving it via a degree. Give me a job!", I will be unlikely to.
Click to expand...

Most of what you're saying is ad hom fallacies and circular logic.

"He never went to college therefore he is wrong about college" is your entire argument summed up.

I had a good laugh at the text book "I was in your shoes and then I grew up." fallacy. For a moment there I thought I was debating a fundamentalist christian!
 
Dustin said:
Most of what you're saying is ad hom fallacies and circular logic.

"He never went to college therefore he is wrong about college" is your entire argument summed up.
Click to expand...

Is it? Which parts?

I never went to college either. Go figure.

ETA, if you'd actually read what I wrote, you will see that there are aspects that agree with your position. Sadly, however, you are continuing to prove why I don't employ people like you.
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
Is it? Which parts?

I never went to college either. Go figure.

ETA, if you'd actually read what I wrote, you will see that there are aspects that agree with your position. Sadly, however, you are continuing to prove why I don't employ people like you.
Click to expand...



No...I stopped reading at 'Then I grew up and saw how the world actually worked.' because I knew nothing that followed would be worth my time since you had used one of the weakest arguments in the book. However reading through your article I can say that you don't agree with me.
 
TimmyBerry said:
Not going to comment on anything I said? I feel left out.. ;p
Click to expand...

Because I don't disagree with anything you say...Except the McDonalds comment. A great deal of college students work full time and attend college part time during night classes. That would seem to negate your claim that you can't learn while working full time.

Seems to me you could learn a lot more effectively if you were teaching your self and worked full time than if you worked full time and attended college.
 
Dustin said:
No...I stopped reading at 'Then I grew up and saw how the world actually worked.' because I knew nothing that followed would be worth my time since you had used one of the weakest arguments in the book. However reading through your article I can say that you don't agree with me.
Click to expand...

That says a lot about you doesn't it...

Since the preamble didn't actually contain an argument, just observations...but you didn't actually get to reading the actual points of the post, because, as per usual, you assumed you were right and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Maybe you'll actually get round to (attempting to) refute some of her arguments...I doubt you'll suceed though, since they seem pretty irrefutable statements of fact or personal observation.
 
Dustin said:
No...I stopped reading at 'Then I grew up and saw how the world actually worked.' because I knew nothing that followed would be worth my time since you had used one of the weakest arguments in the book. However reading through your article I can say that you don't agree with me.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was clear from your other post that you hadn't read mine.

And it's clear from this one that you haven't understood it.
 
Dustin said:
1.That's in Puerto Rico
2.Those stats are for that specific school. Not the United States in general.
Click to expand...

US statistics in general I've been unable to find, and even most colleges don't provide, but this one did.

I CAN tell you statistics for the US as a whole for the portion of students who asked for government help:

For Pell Grants:

http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell0405.pdf

51.8% of applicants received GRANTS.

Then based on this table http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/studentloantables/07ffeldlgross-ay.pdf combine with the previous data yeilds 67% received loans. Undoubtably more than that qualified for loans, but not everyone opts to accept them.

Now, I grant you not everyone fills out a FAFSA, every year. But over 11.5 million did last year, and that seems to be a fairly high percentage to me. And mind you I'm just talking about Federal aid here. That's not counting the innummerable other grants and scholarships available.

Aaron

ETA: you still seem to be off by at least a magnitude with your insane <5% guess.
 
Last edited:
DreadNiK said:
That says a lot about you doesn't it...

Since the preamble didn't actually contain an argument, just observations...but you didn't actually get to reading the actual points of the post, because, as per usual, you assumed you were right and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Maybe you'll actually get round to (attempting to) refute some of her arguments...I doubt you'll suceed though, since they seem pretty irrefutable statements of fact or personal observation.
Click to expand...


I've already refuted all of her arguments which were made by other members in this thread numerous times. I don't have time to re-refute the same arguments made by different people.
 
HeavyAaron said:
US statistics in general I've been unable to find, and even most colleges don't provide, but this one did.

I CAN tell you statistics for the US as a whole for the portion of students who asked for government help:

For Pell Grants:

http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell0405.pdf

51.8% of applicants received GRANTS.

Then based on this table http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/studentloantables/07ffeldlgross-ay.pdf combine with the previous data yeilds 67% received loans. Undoubtably more than that qualified for loans, but not everyone opts to accept them.

Now, I grant you not everyone fills out a FAFSA, every year. But over 11.5 million did last year, and that seems to be a fairly high percentage to me. And mind you I'm just talking about Federal aid here. That's not counting the innummerable other grants and scholarships available.

Aaron
Click to expand...



I won't go deeply into your sources since I don't have time so I will concede that I misspoke on saying that 'less than 5% of students get grants or scholarships'.

What I MEANT to say was that about 5% actually have their entire tuition paid for by these grants or scholarships. About 5% actually get 'full scholarships' and don't have to pay anything.

The majority of the grants are for a few hundred or in some cases a few thousand dollars. Which generally doesn't even cover a single semester.
 
Perhaps it would be useful, Dustin, if you laid out what you are actually claiming. Let me help you:

Agree or disagree:

1.College can be extremely useful to the education of some people
2.Self-taught people (people who didn't attend college) can also reach the same level of ability in a discipline as those who did.
3. College is a much more cost-effective option of obtaining the necessary ability in certain disciplines
4. Some people finish college without having furthered their education any more than they could have acheived without going.
5. Some people finish college having furthered their education more than than they could have acheived by going.
6. A degree is not the only indicator of ability in an a discipline area, and is not an infallible standard of comparison, but it is, on average, a good guide to a person's a) ability in their discipline b) a person's work ethic/ability in general (re: teek's post, along with everyone else who has been telling you the same thing over and over again).
 
BTW the costs mentioned by Larson don't even include room & Board or other charges. When adding all of those charges up the price of college nearly doubles.

So I'm done responding to any of his posts in this thread.
 
Is this whole thread just a case of Dustin using the odd 'exception to the rule' as justification for his position?

I mean seriously...

Dustin: "College is bull****!"
Poster: "Erm, not in general...here's why it is useful"
Dustin: "No, no, in this case it isn't"
Poster: "Maybe so, but in all these cases it is"
Dustin: "I've already refuted that"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom