Education!

Exams are nothing but small pieces of paper, but they do decide, more than anything else we encounter, our future academic life. Academic life, that is, not career or life in general, simply our future in the world of education; schools seem intent in drilling into students a false sense of reverance for those small slips of paper: throughout my schoool career, it was forced into my mind that I must succeed in exams, else I would presumably end up homeless and forced in to walking the streets selling sexual favors to the teachers who once held in their hands my bright future, but who now hold things that do not bear mentioning. Of course, this is a fallacy; throughout history there have been many who have succeeded without a fomal education, and with the advent of the internet there is an even greater opportunity for self learning - For those who wish to find it, knowledge exists, and this is a simple fact. Most students, however, do not wish to learn, they wish to earn, and it is to this which the schools try their hardest to appeal; they care not whether the student wishes to learn, the quest for knowledge is not one that interests them, an odd proposition when you consider the purpose of a school. Nevetheless, what they wish to instill upon students is that money is success, and to aquire money one must aquire an education. Most students will devour this message with out so much as chewing first, they will dive head into the capatilist dream, seeking out not books or theories, but money; they wish nothing more than to own a big house, fast car and to behold as many loose women as their heart desires - The same is true for women, although, foregoing any lesbian leanings, one would assume they would wish to aquire loose men.

I have wondered why schools teach this message, when they more valuable one seems so much more productive: namely, that knowledge, education, should be sought after not for material gain, but for its own sake - For the betterment of humanity, the individual, to know that your life was worth more than a value in a banks computer system. One could blame the usual scapegoats, the media, society, and it is true that they play a part, but they do not demand that schools teach this message, they do not force them to expound it in such a fashion, they do not legislate that children should be tought to learn for a career, not just to learn. One might imagine a society where people do learn for learnings sake, as one filled with philosophers and scientists, who do nothing but develop theories which, although exciting their own personal sensibilities, do not produce anything of worth for soceity as whole. Of course there will be those who do nothing but persure trivial knowledge, but they would be the minority - People do not seek to minimise the impact of their life on the world, but to maximise it, and developing the worlds first boot come sonograph would do nothing to maximise ones legacy.


The point which I so inadequately expressed in my earlier post, is that schools do not teach students to value knowledge, but merely propogate the idea that money is the purpose of existence: I find this deplaurable, disgusting and in some ways depressing, children are the future, after all.

We choose our degrees knowing a number of factors: our own tastes, career posibilities, cost; we weigh up the parameters and, eventually, pick something which provides the best balance. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, however, I can't help but think that we should be choosing a degree based solely on what we wish to persue, what we think we can succeed at, what we enjoy, without consideration for monetary gain. Of course, most do not wish to be poor, and so any ideas regarding how to achieve this, and as a result change the message schools are sending to children, is almost doomed to fail: but it is worth pondering.

Moving on to a slightly more serious issue: those who do degrees because they feel they must, not out of want. Such people have been pressured, by the education system, parents, the media; numerous sources conspire to tell them that without a degree they will be subhuman, they will be bums. These people take a degree without want of education, they learn to pass exams, not to further their minds; these people clog up the education system, they devalue degrees, they force universities to create joke courses that exist for the specific purpose of allowing someone to put "Graduate" on their CV. It looks as though I forgot my politically correct hat today, but not everyone should be doing a degree. People are not born equal, some people simply do not have the faculties to obtain a meaningful degree; they are not, however, contrary to what the schools would have you believe, useless, in fact, I would go as far as to say that they are the most useful and deserving people in soceity. These people have skills which can not be developed academically, they have talents which need to be nurtured in a different enviroment - Yet they are force fed the idea, from an early age, that a degree is needed for success.

Rant over, think about it.
Comments
87
Stop with this shit journals, I'm begging you.
Good reply, i'm proud of you ;)
Parent
2much2read.
Sum it up in 5 scentences and i will read it.
Schools teach us we need to learn to have a career, they should teach us to learn for learnings sake.

People who obviously don't have the academic skills to get a degree, or a meaningful one, should not be told that you need one to be payed well.
Parent
can u sum it up pls?
he states categorically that he likes to eat babies.
Parent
If I could stare that kind of information the pub that I work at would have far fewer customers.

Edit: Edit abuse!
Parent
wtf!
why are there that much that long journals today? goan :(
... they're all mine.
Parent
Are you on drugs?
Caffiene, yes!
Parent
omfg get life
e: where you copied from?
[center]Recent Journals:

hi2u2 iTune
g vs p
HB ZOE
CF is dead
torrent help

Recent Comments:

omfg get life
EXPERIENCE?????!?!
tea & coffee
Wassup, nigga.[/center]


Like you?

I wrote it, I didn't copy it.
Parent
whats bad in that?
Parent
Nothing worse than what I wrote, anyway, it's my own original writing, not copied.
Parent
Lol, you really think I copied it?
Parent
19 ( 5 March 1988 )
who the fuck are you to be an expert in education Oo
Parent
I didn't realise that you had to be an expert to assert your opinion. But, as a matter of fact, I do believe that the system I describe would be much more beneficial to mankind - Only that, in today's world, the first goal atleast is unachievable.
Parent
i want to be just like you when i grow up
Parent
That's cool, send me a postcard when you're done. I don't take credit cards though, sorry.
Parent
i cann you telephony oki
Parent
That... isn't even a sentence.
Parent
Sarcasm isn't a valid technique when the sentence isn't coherent.
Parent
Ok, you win this argument, you have bested me with your superiour intellect and reasoning skills.
Parent
schools force children to believe a degree is needed to succeed in life, which obviously doesn't have to be the case. the problem is that people are only interested in earning as much money as possible while doing as little work possible. however, in order to get such jobs, companies often require you to have a degree, eventhough certain people without degrees would be more suited for the job
Quote by viax Viax on 19/07/07, 13:05:06


LOL the first who read the text :D..d:D:.d.D::DDD
Parent
haha lol'd :DD
Parent
most likely, yes
Parent
I disagree, I don't think people are fundamentally like that. Most wouldn't seek great wealth if it didn't offer such massive benefits. How do you reduce the benefits of wealth? You either make it unattainable (socialism), or you make goods cheaper, which means outsourcing labor to cheaper, foreign countries.
Parent
"or you make goods cheaper, which means outsourcing labor to cheaper, foreign countries."

ahaha I hope you haven't studied economics :P
Parent
No, I haven't, but that's what happens. Labor becomes too expensive in developed countries, people don't want to work shitty jobs for shitty pay anymore. They did in the industrial revolution, but then our economy became more service based. Anyway, the companies then seek other countries undergoing a similar state as britain during the industrial revolution, i.e. they find people willing to work shitty hours for shitty pay. Production costs go down, you can sell your goods for a: more profit, b: at a cheaper price.
Parent
No ..

So hang on, you're saying, to cancel out the rich people's wealth, you make things cheaper? OH dear

Ditching national labour for cheaper labour overseas would obviously cause unemployment (oh yay, higher taxes, that'll make things cheaper), how are people who you're trying to reduce the benefits of wealth for gonna enjoy these new super cheap goods without any money?
Lets forget about this unemployment though for a while. Assume everyone can now afford all these cheap-to-produce goods, demand is sky high, do you think the firms will just cut prices because costs have been reduced - everyone will be happy!!? No, they'll milk as much profit out of the goods as demand will allow (as you say), making the big companies wealthier, probably increasing income differentials bewteen the rich and poor even more, fantastic.
Parent
You built a nice straw man there, congratulations.

My point was that if you wanted to eradicate the benefits of wealth, you would make goods so cheap so that a man on a £100 a week wage could afford everything his heart desired, even everything the heart of a wealthy man would desire - You get the point yes?
Parent
I'm sorry but you can't just "make things cheap" so everyone can afford them, economics doesn't work like that. Yes, of course its a nice utopian idea, but its completely inpractical, I tried explaining why but perhaps it was above your pseudo intellect, lets just pretend you're right instead
Parent
Remind me where I said the idea was either practical or possible? It was simply an example. Although you could, concievable, socialise everything and have goods which would be affordable my all.

You misinterpreted the idea of cancelling out wealth with regards to product price; the idea was not to cancel out wealth per se, a resdistribution would not occur within that system, but the benefit of wealth would no longer be apparent. A system based on trade and goods for example, would have no need for money; or the system based upon cheaper goods, with our economy moving towards the service sector - Ensure everyone is payed enough that they can afford a modicum of luxuries.

Anyway, you can't satisy all, and like you say, big business would likely never submit to lowering their price to anything but the maximum a consumer would pay: but then, that's the beauty of socialism isn't it?
Parent
Nice read and ofc there can't only be university graduates since those who did/do an apprenticeship will always be the majority of a countries population. Plus it's not that you can't earn a decent living without a graduation. ;-)
Yeah, but in my school at least, they pretty much told you that a university degree was completely necessary if you didn't want to be on minimum wage for the rest of your life. They also made it look as if it was the safest route to becoming rich.
Parent
Seems like every school keeps telling us the same. Of course you have more chances to become someone with a university graduation, everybody knows that. But it's not necessary when you finnish your aprenticeship with a good mark. Nevertheless, teachers want the best for their students, provided that they still like their job, and that's why they keep telling us to go to university. It's not that they want to seduce you or talk at large because they wont get anything in return when you go to university at the end.
Parent
Well, that's not true, their are incentives for teachers to get their students to achieve top marks - Namely, that they get to keep their jobs. I'm not talking about wanting the best for the student, that's an admirable goal, I'm talking about continuing the belief that you should go to university to make a career for yourself - This leads many to choose degrees that they don't enjoy, or that they aren't naturally proficient at.

Students should be taught, and given the option and funding to, pursue their own ends, to learn for learnings sake.
Parent
u like to write a lot :o
Your powers of observation are truly a marvel of nature!
Parent
ctrl +c ctrl +v does the job :o
Parent
You have too much free time. And so have i.
it's all about the money, isn't it?
I talked to one of my professors (business economics) and he told me that (as a professor) he will never earn as much money as he would if he had done an apprenticeship. (Is this correct English? - I think not :D ) Of course you can become richer when you've got an university degree, but not necessarily.
I think that it's more important to be happy than to have much money. It's nice if you can buy anything you want, but it's not required to become really happy in life.
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at in my post. Schools shouldn't be teaching that you need a degree to get money, which implies that one needs money to be happy to some degree; they should teach students to follow what they are most interested in, regardless of cost or economic gain - The government, as well, should fund this, rather than slap students with large debts, which only further the idea that one should be earning lots in the first job after university.
Parent
I totally agree.
In Germany there's something wrong: I have to study, because with my mediocre (grammar school) leaving certificate, no one offers me an apprenticeship. Had I attended secondary school and left with a good certificate I'd have much less problems finding an apprenticeship... Besides that, I love being a student ;)
Parent
I still think it's good the goverment makes jobs who are needed (shortage of people for those jobs) more attractive than others alltho i agree u need to study what you are interested in. Here it is the same, a lot of people start in a "higher intelligent direction" than they actually can manage and than fall back because they just can't succeed in that direction.

btw: its probably only in uk/usa students have large debts, here u only pay 500 euro a year so no one has debts when they are graduated

btw: there is a connection between your degree and your income, it's statistically proven that when u got a uni degree u earn xxx more than som1 who doesn't have a degree alltho not everyone off course but the median person earns actually more.

but indeed everyone wants as much money as they want
Parent
QuoteYeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at in my post. Schools shouldn't be teaching that you need a degree to get money, which implies that one needs money to be happy to some degree; they should teach students to follow what they are most interested in, regardless of cost or economic gain - The government, as well, should fund this, rather than slap students with large debts, which only further the idea that one should be earning lots in the first job after university.


The government has no money. All the money comes from working individuals. Every student should pay for his own study. Now the guy picking up the garbage is paying for your education and that's just wrong. It would be even more wrong if you are studying without any economic gain. You make the garbage man pay without him ever getting better from it. Pay everything yourself and I don't care what you do. Do it from someone else his money and I do. Then you have to study for economic gain.
Parent
Oh, I must have forgotten that society was a synonym for "help yourself, not others".

I think we should all just study for whatever's most profitable. In thirty years, when all progress has stopped and we have 30 million unemployed business school graduates, atleast we can look back and say "The garbage man got his share!"
Parent
We all should do what we like best and let others pay for it!
Parent
I'm glad we agree.
Parent
This time, I agree to it all.
More journals like this, please. It's rather refreshing with content for a change. :O)
I kinda agree with what your getting at in this post but i disagree with your school when they suggest you need a degree to become wealthy.

Take my profession, I.T. My previous boss in my old company did not have a degree yet he was head of IT however he had done various technical qualifications in the field, MCSE / CCNA / ITIL / MCT but he never went to University, Still he is sitting pretty on 70k a year. I would say thats reasonably wealthy.

The point is some make a decision not to go to University yet can still go far with their chosen career as long as they are committed. These days a degree (including worthless ones imo) are thrown down peoples throats.
Really interesting read, having applied to medicine and not getting in the first time taking a year out will give me the time I need to decide if it's what I really want to do without school/parent pressure. Need more of these journals!
Seems like a cop out to be honest, I'm always skeptical of people doing such things. You lose momentum and often someone is more likely to pressured into something they don't want to do.

If you want to take a year out then do it for the right reasons (to travel or to work to generate money to make your uni life easier). I mean seriously how hard is it to decide? It should take you 5 mins.
Parent
Well in a way yeah but my reasons for picking medicine are more an interest in biology and such not the "saving lives".
Parent
If you decide to pursue academic studies, you almost automatically lock yourself down to a particular field of work. You can break clean and do something totally different, but it's not that easy because you're stuck with loans and the expectations from the people around you. Spending several years devoted to higher learning impells you to make use of those years spent, and so you feel it almost mandatory to keep within your chosen profession.

I agree that young people are more or less expected and persuaded (probably quite often against their deepest wishes) to go to university or whatever, but in so doing they also limit their choices. Or rather, their amount of choices have already been limitied by what sock said in the main post.

So....yea, do what you want to do and not what you think others want you to do.
The problem is, though, most people are taught that money is the end object of existence, and that academic study is the main route to that end. They learn for career and personal gain rather than simply to learn, they aren't taught to have a thirst for knowledge - Some might say that can't be taught, but I believe it doesn't even need to be, all you have to do is look at a child to see the natural inquisitive nature of humanity. The problem is, that nature is dulled by repeated message of money, power and sex being the be all and end all of society, and that ideal is only further propagated by government and the education system.

Anyway, I think following your heart is the right way to go, but I also think that's it's the governments duty to ensure that that heart isn't corrupted into following an ideal that doesn't benefit the whole of humanity, or atleast isn't completely selfishly motivated.
Parent
Indeed, an interesting view. And it's not wrong.

It's not the academic environment who is propagating these ideas: go to university, get good marks, get a degree, get a job. It's the whole society. It's because jobs that pay good require good skills and knowledge, and the degree is a way to certify them. It's also a proof that one can do hard work, can organise himself, and everything else one needs in order to successfully complete a degree. There are also jobs that do not need degrees. In order to work in a bar, or sell in a shop, you don't need any degree.

In what I have said above, there is a keyword, and that one is JOB. Companies do need to have a way of choosing their employees, and a university degree seems like the perfect choice: someone else already assessed your candidates, and the result is easily available. If you were to thoroughly test each applicant, you'd waste alot of time.

There are two side questions that arise: Do we really need a job to have money? and Do we really need to have good money to have a good life? The second question is kinda controversial, but the general impression seems to be money is good. The first question however is worth a look. What are the alternatives? I guess the best would be owning a business. It's not about being the best, it's all about getting the best to work for you. This however requires some skills only few people have, and it also takes alot of courage. In the beginning business is all about risk, and people don't like taking risks. Only after you have enough experience you can say it's not that risky anymore.

For more discussion on this final topic, I highly recommend this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_dad_poor_dad . It's accessible and easy to read.
I think a more interesting and related question to your first is, do we really need money to have jobs? Imagine an economy founded on labour and produce, rather than money. The main enterprises are production: of food, raw materials, etc, the necessities of life. Ever person from the ages of 18 - 25, unless obviously very gifted in other areas, would work in these production industries, they would produce food and raw materials for the entire nation. After this period, they would be provided with free education and the ability to choose any job to which they are suited. Once raw materials and food have been produced in sufficient quantities, there will be a surplus, these can be exchanged with other nations for goods which we can not produce.

There is no money in the traditional sense, all food and raw materials are processed, and to the workers are handed tokens, a for of money, but not so when you think of what money means in todays world, these tokens are exchanged for luxury goods and services. Each citizen is already provided with the necessities of life, and so has no need to buy them, they are free instead to spend the tokens / money on luxuries, to which they may decide what is best.

Anyway, that's classic socialism, and it's an admirable idea, although I'm not sure how well it would work in reality. You may ask why would anyone then, become a janitor or a sewage worker? Well, they would be paid better in these position, or they would work shorter hours, or they would retire much earlier.

I wasn't disagreeing that jobs require good skills an knowledge, only that such knowledge souldn't be sought after simply to aquire that good job - The student should be taught to learn for learnings sake, not for a career or job.
Parent
But that's not the way it is, isn't it? To make it like this, ALOT of things would have to be changed, and generally, change is not safe (one other thing people seek is the feeling of being safe). Maybe some people wouldn't like to work at all in the food industry, would this system MAKE them work or would it let them starve? Communism had a good philosophy and should have made people live better, yet, somehow, it failed misserably in doing so.

Knowledge for knowledge's sake? Agreed! But there's a catch. Why learn when you can go play/drink/date/whatever? You have nothing to be responsible for. But when you know you have to learn FOR YOUR OWN LIFE, you do it. Indeed, when you learn becase you WANT to, you learn better. When you do it because you HAVE to, it's not the same thing.

Don't get me wrong. I do my degree because I like it, I want it, and I'm interested in it. Maybe I'm too idealist, but I generally see people doing what degree they want. But there has to be at least some bit of obligativity, otherwise most the world would end up dumm, with only a small elite doing the academic stuff.
Parent
That's such a tough question and truth is i'm too naive at this point in time to answer it, of course not all medicine leads to beccoming a doctor in life or death situations but obviously it's something i'll encounter.
The real question is: are you interested in swiping some "free", nhs sponsored heroin?
Parent
dont need degrees etc to get rich. its who you know not what you know
often the case
Parent
we don't need no education
2much2read
amateur filosofen
QuoteIt looks as though I forgot my politically correct hat today, but not everyone should be doing a degree.

Pretty much sums up everything you wrote in one sentence. Typically the problem is the students wanting to go to university (peer pressure and some of the things you mentioned) but not wanting to study traditional subjects in fear of not actually being good enough and possibly failing.

I mean this is quite coincidental but like an hour ago I was in the bank behind this half decent looking girl who was obviously on her lunch break or had just finished (had a co op uniform on), and she was talking to the women behind the counter who obviously she knew. She was talking about she was planning on doing, and talk of university came up, so they were talking about subjects etc and no joke this was the reply she came out with

"I was thinking about history, but there looked like too much writing so I've gone off the idea."
Hmmm... idd.. what if one doesn't like anything in particular? Should he do uni or not? What if he just wants to get a job, being of no concern what kind of job? He just wants the money...

I mean, I really like science and engineering, and that's why I'm doing it... Must everybody like something?
Parent
There is always something someone likes, if however you happen to be that person who has no specific interests at all. Then my advice would be to get a normal job and think of it as the sole means to generate an income not as an extension of your ambition or your education (like most people who go to university). Use the money to enjoy yourself in what ever manner seems best. Don't think about the job too much specifically just think that it's your means to generate more opportunities to do "fun" stuff.
Parent
The question that arises... How many people actually fit into what you have nicely described above, and how many have a clear purpose in life (from an academic pov)?

I think this journal is exacly sock's oppinion that too many people doing university are doing it exacly how you have described above (you were talking about jobs, but anyway):

Quoteas the sole means to generate an income not as an extension of your ambition or your education


and yet you continue:

Quote(like most people who go to university)
Parent
I think the majority are just using university as a transition into the real world. If you moved out when you were 16/18 and got a job etc you would be overwhelmed. People use it to learn some essential "skills" and to learn money management, with the prospect of once your finished you are more likely to have the chance of a decent job because of the study you have taken. For the others, who want to excel and further the field they often do postgraduate then research etc and never stop learning ;D
Parent
Back to top