Students of sociology (my college minor) may recognize that the purpose of any institute of higher learning is to perpetuate the status quo. Contrary to everything ever said about college being a time for free thinking and exploration, it is in fact the time when society indoctrinates the next wave of workers in its values and preferred approaches to thinking.
Simply put, a college degree is nothing more than a certificate indicating that you have successfully completed a lengthy course in the art of conformity. It does not indicate in any way that you are smarter. It does not mean you know more. It means you have proven that when placed under the power of a staggering variety of overlords - each presenting unique and odious sets of burdensome tasks - that you willingly submitted to their decrees without too much complaint.
Sure, many students who wind up with a college degree do actually learn something about their field. But this is a secondary task. In many programs (not all), graduate school is where you are actually expected to start learning your field. The primary task of most undergraduate educations is to make sure that you will do what is asked of you, when it is asked of you, in the manner that it was asked of you.
Trade schools do not give out certificates of conformity. They demand (the good ones anyway) that their graduates are performing in their field at a given level before they get the blessing of a diploma. Universities on the other hand, tend not to care if you are performing well in your field before graduation. They want you to be a "well rounded citizen", meaning all of your nonconformist hard edges have been hammered off of you. Thus, your smoothly beaten conformist identity can slide through society like the cog that it is.
I don't mean to belittle anyone's education, or make it seem worthless. In fact, a certificate of conformity is worth a lot of money. However, we should all realize that every business looking for a college graduate - no preference for degree type - is actually requesting a certificate of conformity. Without the certificate they will refuse to take the chance that you might be a non-conformist.
Having received my master's degree, I know that it is still just a specialized certificate of conformity. I have proven that I can conform to the particularly harrowing demands placed on me by overlords with a personally vested interest in extracting maximum compliance from me. Yes, I do know more about my field than I did at the bachelor's level of conformity, but only because conforming to my current overlords' demands meant that I had to know more. My Ph.D. will be the highest and most prestigious certificate of conformity given in all the land. It still won't mean I am capable in my field. There's a reason that each state has its own licensing board for psychologists. The states don't trust that a Ph.D. from a large accredited university means you know what you're doing. And even beyond state licensing, there's optional board certification from the American Board of Professional Psychology - if you really want to show you know what you're doing. So "Ph.D." is really just a confusing jumble of letters meaning 'super-conformist'.
This post is my hats off to all of you who didn't conform. Fear of the consequences of noncompliance was too much for me to bear. I had to comply to quiet my own anxieties. For those of you who either moved on from the quest for conformity, or never took it up to begin with, I salute you. You were braver than me.
(And heaven help me if any of my undergraduate students finds out about this blog. :) )
I would return your salute if I did not feel so disingenuous doing it. If a person stops caring about consequences is that bravery or apathy?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless I appreciate the sentiment. I'd slap a No Fear sticker on my truck were it not so cheesy (the sticker that is, not my truck).
Maybe I should get a photoshopped college diploma.
ReplyDeleteI found it very difficult doing pointless tasks ad nauseam in college. It would've been tolerable if I had found a program that taught me exactly what I needed to know, as in, preparing me for a career I wanted. There were a few professors whose primary concern was the student's education. Overall, "the system" dominated and it was clear my presence and money played a subservient part in a game concocted by the academic Masters of the Universe.
The only true winners are those who eagerly opt for the lifetime supply of blue pills.
Tell me a lie so well I'll never know
I already have, many times.
ReplyDeleteMichael, should I pretend to be shocked? I prefer honey to sugar, for future lies.
ReplyDeleteWisdom from Penelope Trunk:
"First-choice escape from reality: Grad school,which is almost always a waste of time and money. There is a huge uptick in the number of grad school applications during a recession, but grad school is a lame way to dodge a recession. In a recession, people fear they’re wasting time. And they want to continue developing skills even though they are not employed. The problem is that grad school costs money, and in most cases, it does not make you more valuable in the workforce. There are very few available jobs that require a graduate degree. And if you pay for the degree and don’t use it, you start to look like a rudderless ship to employers. (Also please don’t tell me you are in grad school because you love to learn. You don’t need to get a degree to learn. Do it at home, after work.)"
I respectfully disagree with the premise that all college teaches a person is conformity.
ReplyDeleteYes, I learned to jump through a few hoops (late, which resulted in graduating with a whole year's worth of extra credits,) but I also learned that I can do hard things, like keep slogging away at a degree even after I was beyond tired of school.
I learned to write run-on sentences.
I learned about many subjects I never would have studied on my own, had they not fulfilled a graduation requirement. I'm better informed and more curious about the world around me because I graduated from college.
Sam learned far more useful chemistry in grad school that he did as an undergrad (in fact, he learned that most of the stuff taught in Chem 101 classes is fudged because the real way things work is too complicated to explain to undergrads). He's also found that it is an advantage to have a graduate degree when applying for a job. Penelope Trunk's great, but she's not a chemist.
Last, given the current economy, it's better to have that piece of paper than not. If an employer can choose between two job candidates with equal experience, one degreed and one not, he or she will probably pick the one who learned to be a conformist.
Steph - You'll get no argument from me about being better off with the certificate than without. Believe me, I enjoy my job, but I could teach or be a therapist at far lower-paying levels if I wanted to. A Ph.D. will mean much more money in either field. It matters.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is that all the good things that you picked up are secondary to conformity. You get as much out of an education as you put into it. Thus, the positives that you gained are a credit to your own desire to make something of college - not a credit to college itself. Had your goal been merely to get a degree, like so many of my students, then I think you could have gotten through school without any of those positives having sunk in.
I personally think a well used library card and a healthy sense of curiosity produces a far superior education than a college degree does. Then again, many good students have both a college degree and a library-fed sense of curiosity. Thus it makes it hard to tease things apart.
But it largely comes down the person in question. I too learned a lot in college. But I wanted to. It was important to me. Had I just been in it for the diploma, I probably could have come out dumber than when I went in.
I also think I could have learned more from spending 3-1/2 years just reading books and living out in the world - especially if I had traveled. But I knew I had to have that certificate in order to get into my chosen profession.
Nearly any experience will educate an open mind, college included. I just dispute that college necessarily educates. College necessarily produces conformity in those who get through it. Education's an option in college, conformity's a requirement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI goofed on the naming, so remix:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, what Ryno said (agreeing with Ryno so much is becoming an unforeseen problem).
As for obtaining advanced degrees to make oneself more employable, it can and does help [for getting a job, not necessarily being better at it]. However, from what I'm hearing from people looking for jobs and the individuals doing the hiring, relevant job experience is usually more desirable.
Most employers value PROVEN competence over increased formal education."
And and, I earned enough credits to have graduated with a bachelors. Unfortunately the credits do not conform to any standard set forth by the system for a degree. I am very well-rounded though. Care to discuss art history, anyone?
My experience in the workplace was that after 8-10 hours in a uniform and nametag, earning $2.10 an hour plus tips serving meals with every element measured down to the ounce, I was too tired to be curious about anything much besides a shower and some sleep.
ReplyDeleteMy only choice, really, was how much to flirt with the customers so I could earn more tips.
"Care to discuss art history, anyone?"
ReplyDeleteI would be willing to discuss the history of Dragon Magazine cover art.
BTW, have you seen Canon's new digital camera? Maybe Jill's parents will buy you one for a wedding present, if they love you very very much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39135365/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
...
Less than 24 hours until H-hour (Halo Reach midnight release). The Steelers won today. I am therefore feeling somewhat happy at the moment.
Miss the days of being a hot waitress, Steph?
ReplyDeleteSure, I'd love to discuss the influence of Dragon Magazine cover art on the direction of RPGs, particularly the rise of supervillains in modules, such as Ravenloft. This site sometimes has similar discussions: http://grognardia.blogspot.com/
I might be in the market for a sub-$500 compact camera in the next year but certainly nothing exotic ;~)
Oh, the Steelers won in OT ... mind wandering, ho-hum.
Haaaaallllooooo!!! Don't have a 360 yet :/
It occurs to me as we approach the teens in the number of comments, that sipping water and occasionally purchasing a cup of hot chocolate is not enough for our little geek squad to occupy a cafe in any respectful book store, for this long.
When will the manager emerge from his office and say, "If you won't comment on the post topic then get your loitering butts outta my place!"
"When will the manager emerge from his office and say, 'If you won't comment on the post topic then get your loitering butts outta my place!'"
ReplyDeleteManagement hasn't slept since yesterday. Too delirious with Powerpoint presentation tweaks (and tweaking on caffeine) to care about the shop. Try not to burn the place down. Sweep up if you do.
Go back inside. We'll take care of everything *wink*
ReplyDeleteSteph: I can see that college provided a venue for you to get educated that you would not have otherwise had. I'm happy to concede that, at least in your case, college was clearly more than an exercise in conformity training.
ReplyDeleteI'll also note that I'm grooming McKenna to attend college - no doubt. Evan I'm not sure about. He might be better served by a trade school, but we'll see. Alana's way too young to speculate about of course.
"Sure, many students who wind up with a college degree do actually learn something about their field. But this is a secondary task. In many programs (not all), graduate school is where you are actually expected to start learning your field. The primary task of most undergraduate educations is to make sure that you will do what is asked of you, when it is asked of you, in the manner that it was asked of you."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're operating on the whole premise of "C's get degrees," but to do WELL in college, I had to know my subject. Could I have earned an A in microbiology without learning to culture bacteria? Could I have passed Organic Chemistry without understanding molecular chirality? Would I have had a chance in Mammalogy if I had been unable to recognize dentition patterns? In most of my upper-division science classes, I would have failed miserably if I couldn't conduct a research review and synthesize appropriate conclusions.
Sure, I learned to operate under the imposed deadlines. There was some busy work. In the few cases where intensive study failed, and I could not grasp I concept, I learned to accept the "conventional answer" and move on.
However, the skills and knowledge that I obtained in college were in no way secondary to jumping through the hoops. I learned a great deal of information, and developed the skills necessary to interpret it and apply it in new ways. I performed undergraduate research, which required me to think beyond the textbook-regurgitation level.
This is not to say that I am ready to be a microbiologist, a chemist, a wildlife biologist, or a full-time researcher. To do well in any of those fields, I need a graduate degree. A bachelor's degree in any of the hard sciences is too cursory for professional competence. This is not the case for many other disciplines. But there are far too many exceptions to Penelope Trunk's statement to call it a rule.
(continued below again)
(Okay, so blogspot is on my blacklist. First, it yelled at me when I tried to post this very long comment, so I tried posting it in parts. Then it didn’t post the first part, but it posted the second. So the first post was supposed to be the second, and this was supposed to be the first. And then there are all the other parts, which had better post sequentially. Hopefully everything is still here. It just won’t be in my carefully-constructed order.)
ReplyDeleteManagement MUST be running on fumes, having not noticed that Michael used his real name two days ago.
I realize I'm arriving very late to this party, but I still want to play. I wasn't going to say anything initially, but this post has stuck with me like a burr in my fur. (That wouldn't be intentional, would it, Ryno? Not like you to want to debate..)
I'm not sure how you justify this conclusion, because you don't discuss specific evidence. So rather than debate the premise, I'll go point-by-point.
"Simply put, a college degree is nothing more than a certificate indicating that you have successfully completed a lengthy course in the art of conformity. It does not indicate in any way that you are smarter."
As you are the one who turned me on to Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, I have to quote the passage that this statement brought to mind. Regarding IQ:
"A score of 100 is average; you probably need to be just above that mark to be able to handle college. To get into and succeed in a reasonably competitive graduate program, meanwhile, you probably need an IQ of at least 115. In general, the higher your score, the more education you'll get..."
Now, I didn't minor in statistics or anything, but according to that statement, college graduates ARE smarter, on AVERAGE. (Assuming you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence). Does that mean I'm smarter than the high school drop-out next to me, because I graduated from college? No. First, college didn't make me smarter; I had to be at a certain level of intelligence to succeed. Second, this is just a generality. But job recruiters find generalities very useful.
(continued)
"Trade schools do not give out certificates of conformity. They demand (the good ones anyway) that their graduates are performing in their field at a given level before they get the blessing of a diploma. Universities on the other hand, tend not to care if you are performing well in your field before graduation. They want you to be a 'well rounded citizen', meaning all of your nonconformist hard edges have been hammered off of you. Thus, your smoothly beaten conformist identity can slide through society like the cog that it is."
ReplyDeleteI understand your point that education should be restricted to preparing you for a vocation, not conforming you to the mold of an ideal citizen. However, I don't think I learned any less in my core science classes because I was also required to take African American Literature. Personally, I'm grateful to have an improved understanding of the history of slavery in the U.S. I would never have paid to take that class on my own time. If this class hammered off any nonconformist hard edges, they were the type I'm glad to be rid of.
(continued)
"Having received my master's degree, I know that it is still just a specialized certificate of conformity. I have proven that I can conform to the particularly harrowing demands placed on me by overlords with a personally vested interest in extracting maximum compliance from me. Yes, I do know more about my field than I did at the bachelor's level of conformity, but only because conforming to my current overlords' demands meant that I had to know more."
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for your program, but I think you are extrapolating your experience to create a blanket statement for all graduate programs. Mine is nothing like this. I am the only individual currently in my program that graduated with her bachelor's and immediately started grad school. Everyone else in the program is a working professional returning for further education. This means: 1)The program is designed to allow students of disparate fields to share expertise. Students do not strictly concede to the authority of the professor. 2)Professionals in the field see some added benefit to furthering their education. Work experience is not enough.
As a whole, I have had far more contact with, and learned more from my fellow students than I have my professors. It is impossible for a professor in any of my classes to have the level of knowledge that the class contains as a whole, a fact openly and gladly accepted by the instructors. "Conventional" graduate programs do not follow this model, but many do. Plenty of MBA programs primarily accept working professionals.
(AND continue)
"My Ph.D. will be the highest and most prestigious certificate of conformity given in all the land. It still won't mean I am capable in my field."
ReplyDeletePerhaps your frustration with the conventionality of your education has stemmed from the focus on research. Of course, many theories (in any field) are merely conventions, which change over time. (Freud would be an excellent example). When a program is heavily mired in research, not practice, convention can trump application. Theories crop up that are not useful, and often incorrect. Research for the sake of research. And you're expected to learn and perpetuate it.
My program does not focus on research; most topics regard concerns in the workplace. Nearly all of the professors in my program have industry experience. Sure, there's some theoretical mumbo-jumbo that's of little use. But it's mostly practical stuff. Otherwise, it would be of no use to the professionally-minded students.
I also know you've gone Hulk-crazy with advisors who impose their research agendas on you. I've had the opposite experience. When I wanted to conduct undergraduate research, my advisor asked me about my goals, and tried to help me accomplish them through research. She said it was something her own advisor had done with her, and she wanted to continue that practice. From my understanding, your university is primarily a research university. Others are teaching universities. In my experience with my professors, teaching has always trumped research.
"I personally think a well used library card and a healthy sense of curiosity produces a far superior education than a college degree does."
I won't knock the importance of a well-used library card or a healthy sense of curiosity. In addition to learning a great deal about writing while earning my B.S. (yes, science majors must taking writing courses. Something about being "well-rounded"...), a voracious appetite for reading gave the necessary background to apply for a graduate program in a discipline different than my undergraduate. Most biology majors don't go on to earn a degree in English. I was able to swing it because I've been a reader and a writer all my life, in school and outside of it. However, there have been some gaps in my knowledge that have increased my workload significantly. Sometimes I have to play catch-up with all those English majors. Who knew English majors didn't just sit around talking about hubris?
My point is, reading is great and all, but it leaves gaps. Without an expert in the field (read: instructor) giving you comprehensive coverage of the subject, you learn only what is interesting to you. You don't get the whole picture, though you might think you do. You don't know what you don't know.
Additionally, you're never required to use your knowledge. Discussing new knowledge with fellow students and teachers is invaluable, as is applying it to new purposes.
(please continue)
"My Ph.D. will be the highest and most prestigious certificate of conformity given in all the land. It still won't mean I am capable in my field."
ReplyDeletePerhaps your frustration with the conventionality of your education has stemmed from the focus on research. Of course, many theories (in any field) are merely conventions, which change over time. (Freud would be an excellent example). When a program is heavily mired in research, not practice, convention can trump application. Theories crop up that are not useful, and often incorrect. Research for the sake of research. And you're expected to learn and perpetuate it.
My program does not focus on research; most topics regard concerns in the workplace. Nearly all of the professors in my program have industry experience. Sure, there's some theoretical mumbo-jumbo that's of little use. But it's mostly practical stuff. Otherwise, it would be of no use to the professionally-minded students.
(please, continue)
I also know you've gone Hulk-crazy with advisors who impose their research agendas on you. I've had the opposite experience. When I wanted to conduct undergraduate research, my advisor asked me about my goals, and tried to help me accomplish them through research. She said it was something her own advisor had done with her, and she wanted to continue that practice. From my understanding, your university is primarily a research university. Others are teaching universities. In my experience with my professors, teaching has always trumped research.
ReplyDelete"I personally think a well used library card and a healthy sense of curiosity produces a far superior education than a college degree does."
I won't knock the importance of a well-used library card or a healthy sense of curiosity. In addition to learning a great deal about writing while earning my B.S. (yes, science majors must taking writing courses. Something about being "well-rounded"...), a voracious appetite for reading gave the necessary background to apply for a graduate program in a discipline different than my undergraduate. Most biology majors don't go on to earn a degree in English. I was able to swing it because I've been a reader and a writer all my life, in school and outside of it. However, there have been some gaps in my knowledge that have increased my workload significantly. Sometimes I have to play catch-up with all those English majors. Who knew English majors didn't just sit around talking about hubris?
(as always, continue)
My point is, reading is great and all, but it leaves gaps. Without an expert in the field (read: instructor) giving you comprehensive coverage of the subject, you learn only what is interesting to you. You don't get the whole picture, though you might think you do. You don't know what you don't know.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, you're never required to use your knowledge. Discussing new knowledge with fellow students and teachers is invaluable, as is applying it to new purposes.
This comment has turned out to be very long, certainly longer than the original post. I have just one more thing to say. For the first time ever, I have a job that requires me to use my brain. The hours are flexible, I like the people I work with, and the conditions are cushy. I would not have this job if I had not gone to college. I would not be competent to do this job if I had not gone to college. I would be walking in the sun for 8 hours a day, or scanning some irritable jerk's groceries for even longer. There have been days, while working such jobs, that I have come home and lain on the floor as soon as I crossed my threshold. I have not thought "Oh goody, now I can learn!"
(This is the last time I'll say it: continue)
Cliche as it sounds, college has provided the kind of environment in which I can participate in "free thinking and exploration." This is both within the classroom and through the jobs for which I am now qualified. Aaaaand, I don't accept that I am simply an exception to the rule.
ReplyDeletep.s. Hubby and I are moving to Denver next month. Completely off-topic, but this is the only contact I have with some of you. Just lettin' ya know.
p.p.s. I promise this post did not look nearly as long when it was all packed into this tiny comment box. I guess I'm making up for sitting out all those political debates.
Sorry for the repetition. I'm pretty sure Blogspot is run by Satan.
ReplyDeleteShay I will get back to this. I promise. But I need time to digest. Whoa.
ReplyDelete"Management MUST be running on fumes, having not noticed that Michael used his real name two days ago."
ReplyDeleteOh you're such a tattle-tail! Here I thought I had snuck that past the censors and you show up out of nowhere to foil me. See if I ever let you beat me at Risk again!
I've sent the offending comment to hell.