The Case Against College
In "The Case Against College", Caroline Bird questions the necessity of college and the education it provides. She states that college is accepted--without question. She holds that conventional wisdom and evidence show all high school graduates will be more responsible, and better than those who do not go. Bird's column is devoted to tearing down the college institution. She fails to recognize the many benefits and purposes of college.
Bird points out that there are many college graduates selling shoes and driving cabs. She fails to mention that there are many college graduates doing medical research, managing corporations, teaching children and practicing law. She writes, "We've been told that young people have to go to college because our economy can't absorb an army of untrained eighteen-year-olds." (pg. 39). But, where did this info come from? Is this fact or opinion? She goes on to say, "But disillusioned graduates are learning that it can no longer absorb an army of trained twenty-two-year-olds, either...."
(pg. 40). The world is going to 'absorb' these people whether they attend college or not, no matter what their age. Isn't it better that they are absorbed with some training and education that goes beyond the basics of high school? I think so. I think a college education does create a better person.
With the exception of certain majors and fields of study such as law or medicine, college does not necessarily prepare a person for any vocation. College teaches an individual to develop his or her ability to learn. The mind is much like the muscles of our bodies; it needs to be taxed in order to improve. College offers the opportunity to develop study skills, explore the arts, religion, philosophy and science. It causes people to examine more closely that which...