An interesting and disparaging take on the current education model from an Ivy League millennial

It’s encouraging because the current system is providing a woefully ineffective product that takes too long, costs too much and offers little practical value. The same goes for high school as well.

Regarding the product she is selling, I didn’t look much into it, but I’ll say this, if it offers people an alternative, less expensive and streamlined education/career path than the traditional four year route than good!

A liberal arts education is not supposed to teach job skills.

That’s not the product that colleges sell.

It’s only good if it works - and if it provides what one is looking for.

Tell me this, how many people want to spend $80,000-$200,000 (and even more) just so they can learn more history, sociology, philosophy, etc? All stuff you can find on the internet for free by the way.

Clearly, the answer to your question is a whole lot of people.

If employers will hire people who come through alternative programs over people with four year degrees than that’s all that matters.

Will they?

There are many reasons why many employers would prefer candidates with a well-rounded education.

As someone who taught high school the answer is so they can get a white-collar job. Few if any people are going to college and spending a ■■■■ load of money just so they can sit in classrooms for four more years of their lives to listen (actually more likely daydreaming) to lectures on largely irrelevant material that most of them find rather boring.

I just graduated from law school, and I’m still 50/50 on whether I’ll ever actually practice law.

I’m one of those weirdos who goes to school to learn things, not because I think it’ll help me get a job at Ernst & Young.

2 Likes

Heretic

It’s so boring.

The “well-roundedness” argument is bunch of ■■■■■■■■■ I’ll post the author’s comments from the OP again:

I studied economics and mathematical finance, coursework that sounds practical but was in fact largely useless to both my startup and my Wall Street career . Like many finance firms, my first employer had no expectation that recent grads (all from top universities) had adequate preparation for the job —all new hires go through intensive training programs.

Even if students were exposed to relevant material in college, they likely experienced lecture-based teaching, which remains the dominant form of instruction. A whopping 80% of undergrad STEM classes are based on lectures. But listening passively doesn’t lead to knowledge retention, and the research clearly shows that this method doesn’t work. I graduated with the highest honors, and very little of what I “learned” stuck past final exams.

I’d probably think so too if I got whooped by an Old Cowboy… :wink:

MACA!

1 Like

I’m just saying - the best lawyer job I could take right now would be in Government Contracts law.

I’d make very good money, but at best (worst) I’d be spending my life helping defense contractors secure contracts to build weapons. More likely I’d spend most of my time representing ■■■■■■ little companies trying to scam the government on janitorial contracts.

Have you heard of the internet? It’s a whole cheaper than paying to sit in classrooms. :wink: Seriously though, you must have money to burn if you can do that.

You went to an Ivy League school did you not?

I got a very healthy financial aid package.

No, I went to Berkeley for undergrad, and GW for law school.

Close enough.

Did you learn anything there you couldn’t have learned at a state school?

We absolutely do need a renewed emphasis at the high school level on trades!

Berkeley is a state school.

And I certainly had a level of professor at GW that I wouldn’t have at most state law schools, or even at lower-ranked private law schools.