Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You assume going to college is all about passing along certain information. A liberal arts education emphasized skills like creativity and critical thinking, necessary in any field and walk of life.

You assume "creativity and critical thinking" can only be learned in college. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong.

If anything, these days college hinders the development of creativity and critical thinking.

This is OP. I did not post the above, but the general consensus seems to be: college is for sexual experimentation, drinking, and to get a job. Unless you want to be professor, then by all means get into a top school.

Why do parents need to pay $$$ for kids to sleep around and drink, can't they do that, if they must, while immmersed in more productive ventures? And now, even the job thing is coming into question.

I agree. Few kids are able to really survive the lion's den that college campuses have become. The party culture has gone mainstream. Smarter parents will help pay for 'higher' education closer to home.

Option 1: OP is a multimillionaire tech entrepreneur who spends His free time posting "the education secrets of the smart wealthy" on DCUM.

Option 2: OP is a bored high school student who has seen a few episodes of Silicon Valley and read an online article about Peter Thiel's scholarship program

I vote Option 2.

Lots of people refer to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs when advocating the point that college isn't necessary. Those guys are/were in risky fields. For every Bill Gates, there are hundreds of college dropouts without a lucky big idea. People attend college to avoid risk. About 30% of my class last Harvard became doctors and lawyers. They command a high hourly wage, and can choose to work for someone else. Another 10% got PhDs, leading to interesting jobs and nice lives in college towns.

If you are wealthy, your parents can bankroll your new venture, or pay for you to acquire the skills necessary to underpin that new idea. Gates and Zuckerberg both come from wealthy families that paid for training in programming. They were really operating on a professional level when they arrived at college.

Risk is fine when your parents can put a financial floor under you or leave you a trust fund. For the rest of us, education is still the way to go.

Stoopid thread.

The ultra wealthy are not eschewing education for startups. And the Silicon Valley nerds are not the ultra wealthy, even though they believe they are - that's what myopic world views do to you.

The average entrepreneur is over 35 years old, the 18 year old tech founder is the exception not the rule, and the hugely successful companies are called unicorns for a reason.

This 'conversation' is just a continuation of a Pete Thiel wet dream...never going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:OP is a nut.

OK. I am tuning out. Nice chatting with all of you. I wish you all the best of luck in everything that you do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. New money. Bless your heart.

New money has always ruled this country after forcefully grabbing the reins from Old Money--which gracefully gave it up. Time and time again. Money came to me even though I did not chase it, I was chasing something else. I quit and hit financial rock bottom while I was working the start-up. I am grateful for how things turned out.

I do not hate Old Money. You must be neither. The dirty secret is that Old Money and New Money secretly are fascinated by the other. Always has. You should see the eyes they make at each other at charity balls.

Can you at least address my initial post?

Oh honey. Many of us here have been to countless charity balls, grew up going. Old Money is much less fascinated by the nouveau riche than you would think. If you only knew how we talk at the country club when you arent around...

Oh honey - you have no idea what this thread is about and are not contributing anything intelligent or useful. I'll spell it out for you: it's about education. Go brag about your "old money" somewhere else - maybe on those threads complaining that the Kennedys ARE NOT OLD MONEY!! (You probably start those.)

Anonymous wrote:
I get the gist of what you're saying. Not sure about the discussion you've anticipated however.

Entrepreneurship and vocational training may very well rise somewhat in step with tuition costs. I'm more interested in what the middle class will do as college gets out of reach for many.

The 1% can fund a small business for their children, perhaps in lieu of tuition. I won't be surprised to others putting whatever support they can offer behind a young person's effort to create something for themselves independent of a college degree.

I wonder about liberal arts. I have already noticed that my liberal arts college (Sarah Lawrence) has moved towards social entrepreneurship, providing a context for learning while encouraging innovation. Not necessarily the middle class there, but I feel like I've caught a glimpse of the future.

+1. In a very short period of time, a liberal arts degree has become a very expensive luxury (and I say that as an English major and almost-art history minor). I think if one has the means, launching your child with seed money for a well-thought out product and well-planned startup would be great. Would that we could all do it.

I too will be interested to see what happens over the next decade in terms of vocational training. There was even a joke about it on Modern Family recently - something the mom said to the airhead son about how vocational training is just as valid as the genius kid's acceptance into Caltech. It was just an aside, and meant as a joke, but I think there's more than a grain of truth in there. Not everyone needs a B.A.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You assume going to college is all about passing along certain information. A liberal arts education emphasized skills like creativity and critical thinking, necessary in any field and walk of life.

You assume "creativity and critical thinking" can only be learned in college. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong.

If anything, these days college hinders the development of creativity and critical thinking.

This is OP. I did not post the above, but the general consensus seems to be: college is for sexual experimentation, drinking, and to get a job. Unless you want to be professor, then by all means get into a top school.

Why do parents need to pay $$$ for kids to sleep around and drink, can't they do that, if they must, while immmersed in more productive ventures? And now, even the job thing is coming into question.

OP is a nut.

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is cachet, not cache. Maybe you should be educating for more formal education, not less. Your writing skills are atrocious.

x2. Is a dead giveaway for OP's lack of sophistication, btw, no matter how hard they are trying to come off that way.

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is cachet, not cache. Maybe you should be educating for more formal education, not less. Your writing skills are atrocious.

Whoa, that's funny error on my part! I wrote the other word so many many times..my bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It worked for the family that started Five Guys.

I don't know them. Tell me about that.

They didn't start out wealthy but started the business instead of paying for college with the money they'd saved.
Just read this:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0806/restaurant-chefs-12-five-guys-jerry-murrell-all-in-the-family.html

Thank you. The bigger issue I see is, future employers may value the trend-bucking entrepreneurial ethos, the way some places value tattoos (yes, they exist) and the way some places absolutely value casual dress. So, a kid coming in who started a company after high school may be a more attractive hire than the kid who diligently completed college and has nothing else.

If you are sending your child to make him or her more employable, value of the education be damned, that is another concern, because I don't even know if that will be gospel truth in 20-30 years.

Anonymous wrote:You assume going to college is all about passing along certain information. A liberal arts education emphasized skills like creativity and critical thinking, necessary in any field and walk of life.

You assume "creativity and critical thinking" can only be learned in college. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong.

If anything, these days college hinders the development of creativity and critical thinking.

Anonymous wrote:As an engineer, I have a hard time imagining STEM fields embracing a whole generation of self-taught individuals who decided to skip school because it wasn't worth $$ to them. I'll agree that I learned mostly theory in school and everything practical afterwards, but employers want to see that I could get into the top-ranked school, pass the courses required to get the degree, maintain a decent GPA, etc. So for all those budding entrepreneurs who can fall back on their parents' wealth, this may very well be an option, but for the future doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc this doesn't seem practical.

Professional schools are different. If my child wished to be a doctor, college and med school it is.

But in the software development field, I understand that in the entering ranks, it is "what have you programmed already?" that is the biggest draw of the resume, no? So, you can get your degree, or not, but you have to be self-taught if you wish to get a head start. As more and more applicants become self-taught and come in with apps under the belts, the degree may become worthless.

Things may be changing even from when you graduated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You assume going to college is all about passing along certain information. A liberal arts education emphasized skills like creativity and critical thinking, necessary in any field and walk of life.

No. That is what I am telling you. The titans of creativity and critical thinking by any measure are all questioning their college education. Some never completed it, and while in college, attended precious few classes. That's just Kool-Aid talk spouted by the Admissions Office. They were creative and thought critically by the time they stepped foot in college, and it's largely by the enrichment their received outside of school classes.

They used to squawk the same way when classical education was under attack. Whatever happened to that??? Gone, gone, gone...

What type of enrichment encouraged this early critical thinking, in your opinion?

A lot of it had to do with exposing children to very unconventional experiences...travel (including immersion), exposure to new technology (some kids took to it very readily), highly educated or artistic parents who did not work 90 hour weeks but spent a significant and regular amount of time with their children exploring the world, animals, etc. Some had spotty school attendance at times.

I guess some people are really, deeply questioning the value of a B.A. or B.S. degree in the coming decades.