[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I suppose we all get from school what we put into it.

I forgot the name of the guy, who said it, but he was some big philosophy lecturer at Harvard and his view on the matter ( heavy reading course and one student left a course review - "not reading assigned reading did not hurt me at all") was ( paraphrased):

"This guy is an idiot if he thinks the point of paying $60k a semester of parents money is to sit here and learn nothing.'

[lupire]

He's paying for the degree and the professional network. Studying would be a waste of time.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I hope it will not sound too preachy. You are right in a sense that it is what he thinks he is paying for, but is actually missing out on untapped value. He will not be able to discuss death as a concept throughout the lens of various authors. He will not wrestle with questions of cognition and its human limitations ( which amusingly is a relevant subject these days ). He will not learn anything. He is and will remain an adult child in adult daycare.

I could go on like this, but I won't. Each of us has a choice how we play the cards we are dealt.

I accept your point, but this point reinforces a perspective I heard from my accountant family member, who clearly can identify price, but has a hard time not equating it with value. I hesitate to use the word wrong, because it is pragmatic, but it is also rather wasteful ( if not outright dumb ).

[recursive]

It's not wasteful if: the student "values" the credential but not the learning. Some people have no appetite for philosophy or the perspective of notable authors on death. He will probably learn something though.

Your characterization of an adult child does not seem fair. What makes someone an adult? If it's academic discourse, then why is it valuable?

I mean, if you're into it, more power to you. Go nuts with finally figuring out what makes a human. Just don't claim it's more virtuous than anyone else's hobby, unless you can find a reason.

To call it "wasteful" says that something of "value" is being squandered, but the value is perceived by each of us differently.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< It's not wasteful if: the student "values" the credential but not the learning.

Hmm, I could try repeating the value argument from the other end, but lets approach it differently. You mention a credential itself being a value, which is not an unreasonable position to take, which is part of the reason I am not dismissing it outright.

But what is a credential? Oracle that is Google defines it as "a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something." Are they qualified simply, because they 'put in their time' at an institution of supposed higher learning? If so, that credential is not only wasteful, it is also worthless. It exists for now only because it is riding on the glory of its past.

At least previous poster's argument was more direct: it is not about learning at all. It is a social club, where kids of already successful people are sent. That network of kids of the already successful has its uses, but if it is a social club AND, as we established in previous paragraph, it is a learning institution in name only ( used only for credential ), then it is really just that: a social club, which I characterized in a flight of fancy as an adult daycare. I do stand by this phrasing, because the more I think about it, the more it fits.

<< Your characterization of an adult child does not seem fair. What makes someone an adult?

Hmm, good question, but I will leave it unanswered. I want to see how you respond to the previous point.

<< If it's academic discourse, then why is it valuable?

Academic discourse is not valuable. Frankly, at its core, nothing is inherently valuable, because any value is the value we ascribe to things. You might think that this is me saying:

'ok, so anyone can value anything and thus the kid doing for the credential is just as valid in their choice.'

It is a choice. It is valid. It just also happens to be, well, wasteful ( and maybe a little immoral, but that ship has sailed ) as the kid in question leaves the school with a credential that does not reflect that AND then goes into the world making decisions with a weight of that credential behind him. Thank goodness he is not an actual engineer. Future would look pretty grim then.

<< Just don't claim it's more virtuous than anyone else's hobby, unless you can find a reason.

You may be hanging onto my anecdote, but since that was the only professor at Harvard I had a chance to listen to on the matter, I thought it was relevant and any virtuosity in it is purely coincidental. The point he made was genuinely pretty apt. The point of education at Harvard ( or other notable names ) is not spend your parents money parking your keister for 4 years while waiting for that credential.

<< To call it "wasteful" says that something of "value" is being squandered, but the value is perceived by each of us differently.

No. Just because we perceive things in a certain way, does not automatically mean that there is no objective reality. It just means we don't perceive it ( accurately or otherwise ). This is where I believe this conversation could get interesting, because I think this is what we actually disagree on.

Wasteful is 'expending value carelessly'. Even if we value things differently, using Shelby GT for pizza delivery seems wasteful. I technically have no problem with anyone doing that ( you got money burning your pocket, who am I to judge ), but I am also not going to pretend it is a sensible thing to do.

From where I sit this is not that different from going to Harvard for a credential. Or network. It is just a wasted potential.

And it is sad. For Harvard. Edit: Or society as a whole. I am not sure now.

Ok. I am going to stop here. It is 3am and I clearly typed too much.

[recursive]

I'm not sure whether my point of view is going to stand up to someone who has put as much into this as you have. But anyway.

> If so, that credential is not only wasteful, it is also worthless.

I think "worth" is a synonym for "value".

> Frankly, at its core, nothing is inherently valuable, because any value is the value we ascribe to things.

I can't reconcile these two statements of yours.

> as we established in previous paragraph, it is a learning institution in name only ( used only for credential )

I've never been, but I imagine there is actually more to it, but some people may not participate in the true learning part. Like the combo meal has fries. I'm just choosing not to eat them.

> The point of education at Harvard ( or other notable names ) is not spend your parents money parking your keister for 4 years while waiting for that credential.

Perhaps Harvard wishes that were not the case, and some of the time it probably isn't. But I find it hard to believe that no one pays tuition for that purpose.

There probably is an objective reality for all know. I even refer to it sometimes. But all I have to work with are these five senses, and this faulty brain.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Thank you. This was a good exchange for me.