College Is For Suckers

In Stephen King's novella The Long Walk, the biggest event in post-apocalyptic America is an annual race-walk featuring a hundred boys. To ensure a lively pace, flatbed trucks carrying soldiers shadow them along the side of the road. Whenever their speed falls below three miles an hour, the soldiers bark out a warning. The fourth time, they get shot. The contestants hike down I-95 until they're blown away or drop dead of exhaustion. The last survivor receives The Prize. The Prize is anything the winner desires. The Prize is all anyone ever talks about. After the crowds go home, the winner is quietly executed.

In pre-apocalyptic America, parents force their kids to run an 18-year-long marathon for a similarly futile remnant of the American Dream called The Promise. Graduate from the right college, The Promise goes, and you'll learn all you need to know, land a good job, have a great life. The catch is that you have to survive countless filters -- grades, tests, demographics, luck -- to get into a good school. For the lucky few, being admitted is merely a prelude to the ultimate challenge: finding the cash to pay insanely high tuition bills. For most, the only answer is to take out huge student loans, setting up yet another financial gauntlet to survive long after graduation. In no time at all, The Promise says, you'll pay back the loans, earn more money than the losers who didn't make it and leave your kids an obscenely huge inheritance.

The Promise is based upon several faulty premises:

College makes you more marketable, especially during difficult economic times. Although there are a few advantages to being a college graduate when you're looking for work, the difference is slight compared to the cost of tuition and fees.

Highly competitive admissions processes select for the best and the brightest. Given the way our society selects who will go to college, there is little evidence of this. Having worked in an admissions office at a highly competitive university, I can assure you that the process is arbitrary as hell. Often the best and brightest don't stand a chance.

Without a college degree, you will shrivel up and die like a desiccated bug. Actually, you might be better off both financially and professionally.

Although the best way to ensure a high-paying job is to major in something "practical," a liberal-arts degree is better than none at all. Wrong. There's no financial advantage to going to college as a liberal-arts major.

College is a worthwhile learning experience, vital to shaping the leaders of tomorrow. College students mainly learn how to fuck, snooze and get soused.

I understand The Promise well. My mother, like many immigrants, was obsessed with the importance of education. Because she was a high school teacher, by age 10 I knew all about sucking up to teachers to set up letters of recommendation, entering essay contests to get scholarships and volunteering to work for my local Congressman to get sponsored for one of the military academies. My entire life from then on was devoted to the single goal of gaining admittance to and financing attendance at a prestigious eastern university -- ideally an Ivy League school. In eighth grade, I planned out all 56 of my high school classes through senior year, and I stuck to my plan. I worked three jobs to save money for school, but kept the money in cash in my safety deposit box (so the financial aid office wouldn't take it into consideration). I joined countless inane extracurricular activities because I thought they'd help me get into a good school (I can still feel the polyester outfit I wore in marching band while playing the clarinet part to "Don't Cry Out Loud (Just Keep It Inside)"). Like most teens, I wanted to go to parties and have girlfriends, but I worked on extra-credit assignments instead. I couldn't let anything stand in the way of escaping my Ohio suburb.

In the end, I got into Columbia. Because I'd done well in math and science in high school, my mom insisted that I pursue an engineering degree. (Parents often confuse academic ability for interest.) "Look at your dad," she said. "He makes good money." I knew she was right. But courses like Nuclear Engineering E3001 and Partial Differential Analysis G4305 didn't hold my interest for long. I slept through almost every lecture, either in bed or in class. Three years later, I'd racked up an impressive string of Ds and Fs, particularly in physics. When my dean called me to tell me I'd been expelled, he told me they couldn't decide whether it was for academic or disciplinary reasons. I had 24 hours to vacate my dorm.

By early 1990, I was working at a bank. (I'd told my employers that I had a degree to get the job.) The phone hadn't rung much since the '87 stock market crash, and a lot of my friends had already gotten laid off. Motivated by fear and boredom I reapplied to Columbia, but as a history major (I'd been reading a lot of Vichy France books). I was shocked that they admitted me; maybe my old discipline records got lost. I still wasn't convinced that blowing $25,000 in savings on one year of school was a wise move -- my $36,000 salary disqualified me for financial aid -- but I was worn down from listening to my mom and future i--laws hassle me about it. I wanted to finish what I'd begun ten years earlier and looked forward to being an undergraduate at age 28.

I graduated in 1991. Since then, the central premise of The Promise has evaporated. Measured by traditional indicators like the Dow Jones average and the unemployment rate, the American economy has boomed, but the average employee hasn't noticed. Not only are corporations not hiring, but they've laid people off 43 million times since 1979. From 1990 to 1994, the top 5 percent of wage-earners saw their paychecks rise 17 percent. The rest of us lost ground.

Most Americans go to college in order to land on the first rung of the comfy, safe corporate ladder. Now that those corporate jobs are either low-paying or no--existent, we should ask ourselves:

WHY GO TO COLLEGE?

In America, the selection process for college is quite arbitrary. First- and second-grade teachers armed with IQ exams disguised as "aptitude tests" mark kids as college -- or 7-Eleven -- bound within the first few months of school. From that point forward, the fate of American children is virtually predetermined. Nonetheless, college-tracked students are expected to spend the next 12 years preparing for the college application process. Even for the fortunate who have been selected, a minor slip-up can lead to developing an intimate knowledge of deep-frying.

"College-bound" students devote their childhoods to the hope of receiving a thick letter from a college admissions office. They join cheesy activities they don't really like: student government, marching band, Latin Club, yearbook. They invest hundreds of dollars on test-prep courses for the PSAT, ACT and SAT. Then they take the tests again -- as many as four times -- to raise their scores. Plagued by "senioritis" and burned out after more than a decade of college prep, some may be tempted to let their guard down, but it's best to keep their Junior Council on World Affairs membership dues paid up through commencement. After all, students listen with a shiver, colleges have been known to react to a drop in senior-year grades by rescinding their acceptances.

So you've gotten into the school of your dreams? Don't ease up now! The same vicious atmosphere of competition prevails here -- you'll need the right grades to get the right college recruitment offer from the right company, or even to make it to graduation. Given up on the job market? You'll still need at least a 3.5 GPA to get into a good graduate school! The treadmill never stops.

Until the day your heart stops beating, people will ask you where you went to college. Your answer to that cocktail-party question will often determine what people think of you, what jobs you'll be considered for, whether or not you'll be promoted, whether your i--laws will approve of you. If you're lucky, your glowing personality, savvy wit and stunning achievements can overcome an education deficit... if you're lucky. You won't even be safe from the cult of college when you die; your alma mater will rate a prominent mention in your obituary.

Not everyone buys into The Promise. Dan Hassan, 31, found that dropping out of an Ivy League school after just a year hasn't prevented him from rising to a management position as a director at a Manhattan ad agency. "Very little that you learn in a liberal-arts education is ever used in the workplace," he says, but admits that his i--laws still nag him about finishing his degree. Dave Schulman, a 26-year-old Duke graduate, told me, "College is complete bullshit. I owe $40,000 in student loans, and for what? So I can make $28,000 doing data entry?" Everyone's so busy saving money and getting good grades to go to school that they never ask the most fundamental question of all:

IS IT WORTH IT?

Once you cut through all the hype, the financial and emotional sacrifices Americans make to send their kids to college just don't yield the payoff that many of them are looking for -- financial security. Some people figure out they've been had after the fact. Allan Feuer, a 27-year-old freelance writer says, "I don't think it was worth it. I haven't seen a financial payoff." Feuer dropped out after three years and returned after a five-year hiatus: "I'm glad that I finished, but it's more for personal reasons."

Politicians from Labor Secretary Robert Reich to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan blame our current economic problemsÑdownsizing, increasing income disparity, the trade deficitÑon the need for more education. Why are these people lying to us?

Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, finds no correlation between education -- even a technical education -- and increased income. The best-educated, most computer-literate workers do no better in the 17-year-old climate of downsizing than anyone else. "We are seeing wage declines for the vast majority of workers," Lawrence Mishel, Bernstein's partner at EPI says. "Workers in every industry you look at, including those that are the most technologically advanced, have been losing ground."

Despite dazzling innovations like the Internet, Bernstein and Mishel say that new technology is entering the workplace at the same rate it always has. Contrary to popular perception, American workers haven't suddenly been rendered obsolete by sudden technological improvements. In fact, the United States already has the most highly-educated work force in the world -- 25 percent of our workers are college graduates. Logically, we should be kicking the most ass in the global economy, but we're falling way behind. Blame our economic problems on the decline of unions, greedy CEOs, excessively free trade, a regressive tax structure, the absence of an electric fence along the Rio Grande, whatever you want. But it's not caused by insufficient education.

CERTIFICATION, NOT EDUCATION

We take for granted that a four-to-eight-year stint at a college or university is required to mold an American into a well-rounded, educated, homo modernis. In ancient Greece and Rome, the relationship between students and teachers was personal, customized and intense. Today's colleges and universities are anything but.

First of all, American colleges are not a filter. Only about 50 four-year colleges reject more applicants than they accept. About 200 more admit 50 to 90 percent of all who apply. The rest let in anyone with a high school degree.

One of the best-educated people I know is a UC San Diego dropout. He sneaks into the first day of classes at San Francisco State, grabs syllabi to snag the reading lists and reads the assigned books on his own. On the other hand, an acquaintance of mine with a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from Columbia is a total moron who can't read a map. She knows nothing about history, politics, music or literature. In her case, a college degree does not equal an education.

At Columbia, I met countless student-idiots: kids on football scholarships who passed classes without attending them, children of wealthy alums, pre-meds who cheated on almost every exam they took. One time, when I was working as a math T.A., I tutored a calculus student in the "help room." We kept breaking down a question until I found the problem -- she didn't know her multiplication tables.

Although America's universities are churning out a steady stream of brai--dead simpletons, our society relies almost exclusively on college credentials as the central determining factor of social status and employment opportunities. "A college degree is a signal to employers that you can do what people tell you to do for four years," Patrick Barkey, Ball State University's Director of Business Resources says.

If I were hiring for Microsoft, I'd be much more interested in related work experience than in a Stanford degree and a GPA. But it ain't that way.

COLLEGE AND THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PHENOMENON

Robert Frank and Philip Cook argue in their new book The Winner-Take-All Society, that "winner-take-all" markets, where more and more people compete for fewer and fewer prizes, add up to enormous differences in economic rewards for negligible differences in performance. For instance, an Olympic silver medal winner is very nearly as good an athlete as a gold medalist, but doesn't receive nearly the same amount in endorsements and prestige. Frank and Cook found that although degree holders tend to earn more money than no--degree holders on average, education only accounts for 15 percent in the difference of wages. "Human capital" -- people's personalities, abilities, physical appearance and intelligenceÑaccount for the vast majority of the variance in wages and personal success.

The use of college degrees to screen applicants for jobs and petitioners for marriage leads to social and economic instability by discouraging and disenfranchising no--degree holders. Given how secondary schools, the admissions process, financial concerns and academic curves randomly prevent countless brilliant Americans from obtaining college degrees, it's insane to rely on them as a qualifier.

There is no proof that holding a degree from an accredited educational institution makes you a smart person, yet that's a central assumption in our society. So people chase more degrees. A bachelor's degree is now worth what a high school degree was a few decades ago. In most companies you need a master's to be considered for a middle-management job. Soon you'll need a doctorate. As degrees become devalued, the only winners are university trustees, who invest their skyrocketing endowments in the financial markets so they can afford to pay themselves six-digit salaries.

Why play along? If you really need a cumbersome bureaucracy to teach you what they want to teach you because you're too unimaginative to learn on your own, and the idea of a four-year vacation from life appeals to you, start rounding up recommendation letters and application fees. If you need college certification to pursue your professional goals, go for it.

Otherwise, bear in mind that The Promise, whatever its merits during the '50s and '60s, is a quaint anachronism dating to an unwritten social contract that has long since been revoked. Inexplicably, our politicians and pundits are trying to turn the US into France, where Sorbonne graduates drive taxis and collect unemployment. Trained for an elite without openings, these people can't find it within themselves to do what they want -- start their own business, write books, write software, sell stuff on the street -- whatever it takes to survive in a world without guarantees. They bought into the notion that a college degree is everything. They expected to coast through life after graduation, so they focused all their energies into the day when they'd walk down a long aisle in alphabetical order and collect a diploma. They lived for that moment, and once it passed, their lives were over. They'd wasted years of their lives and lost infinite opportunities.

At least they didn't pay for the privilege.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close