College - Please tell me it gets better

[adrock3215]

This is for anyone here who does or has gone to college.

I dropped out of college after one semester. I couldn't take it at the time, and I had a good job offer. Eventually I was able to put together a substantial amount of savings at that job and I moved on to trading stocks for a living. Now, 5 years after I initially dropped out, I am married and own a home, which have been proud achivements of mine. I have decided to go back to school at the urging of my wife, since my job trading stocks allows me a great amount of down time, and taking classes doesn't present a conflict. In addition, the degree will give me some flexibility if I decide I want to manage money professionally or work at a trading desk for a major bank on Wall Street.

So anyway I signed up for a few courses this spring semester and I began them last week. I quickly realized after a few days why I couldn't stand college the first time. Maybe a part of me thought it would be different now, although I didn't really have major expectations for it. So anyway, attending these classes feels like I am being indoctrinated by liberal thought and just plain garbage. A few days ago I watched a video in an American history class that reminded me of a propaganda film in Soviet Russia. I am taking an American literature (post-Civil War) class that stresses the traditional trash literature in US history, i.e. Hemingway, Eliot, Dickinson, Frost, W.E.B. Dubois, a bit of Twain. The professor in the class has the choice of what literature he decides his students will read; he has stated that the central theme of the course will be slavery and how the Civil War is a neverending war that is still going on in America today. In my economics class I am being shown Keynesian theory only for the entire semester, and then the "last week" we will focus on "a few" negatives of the theory. The central theme linking all of my current classes is that the Western World and all its achievements is the lowest, most rotten thought in human history. Moreover, I have learned that I am a piece of trash, as I am a self-made-white-American-Capitalist male of semi-European descent.

I am technically a freshmen, as I only have a few odd credits beneath my belt from my prior attendence. I have to take what they call "CORE" courses, which are general education courses required to graduate, i.e. humanities, literature, diversity, arts, etc. Most of my current class schedule consists of courses of this type, except for the economics class, as I am an economics major. I'm sure we can discuss how ridiculous it is that colleges even require these courses to be taken, but that is another topic all together.

What is some advice (those on here who have attended college) that you can give me to get through these horrendous few years? Does it get better when I begin taking classes related specifically to my major? I realize in most courses you have to shutup and agree with whatever socialist/Marxist viewpoint of the professor, otherwise you risk your grade. How have people managed to cope with this and stay in school?

[Mimpy]

I am a freshman in college, too. I am taking mostly math/science classes (because I'm a biology major), so most of my learning is pretty objective. I am taking one English class, in which the professor can choose the texts and the subject for the class. The topic for the class is the struggle for identity in difficult political situations. So far we have read a book about the Darfur conflict and the Sierra Leone civil war. We will read other such books for the rest of the semester, including Elie Wiesel's Night. As you can probably guess, the class is pretty depressing. I personally do not think that genocide and war are topics to be discussed for an entire semester: there are more uplifting things to discuss. Furthermore, the constant complaint of how the US goverment is not doing anything to help these poor people is annoying. However, I always try to write my essays objectively and clearly. In this class, I can choose what I'd like to write about (pertaining to the novel, of course), so I write about things that I believe, not what the professor does.

Your professors should be open-minded and so will probably not mind if you ask them honest questions. I would not have an accusatory or argumentative tone, but I think it is fine to suggest some of the problems you see with the ideas they are teaching. If they are hostile to your questions, then that is not your fault. There's nothing you can do at that point, besides drop the class if you want and still can. But I definitely encourage you to ask a lot of questions. Professors generally love a good discussion. This will also be a learning experience for you, and it will give you a chance to strengthen your own arguments with many examples and good logic.

Also, if you have chosen a major in the humanities, then you will unfortunately have to get used to this.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Mimpy

[DavidOdden]

My suggestion is that you decide what your priorities really are, and integrate them with reality. I understand that you want classes in literature, economics and moral theory taught by Objectivists, but that is extremely unlikely to actually happen. There is no requirement that say "You must take 50 credits of commie propaganda" -- if you think there is, I can point you to your university's actual requirements and can explain how you do have non-repugnant options. Hypothetically, you may have to decide whether to satisfy requirement X by taking a linguistics course from an Objectivist professor, or a literature course from a commie. In picking the literature course, you're recognizing that you place higher value in the study of literature than in linguistics, which trumps your desire to not deal with commies.

Given a choice of economics vs. cognitive psychology, I can understand why you personally would be more interested in economics (and the opposite would be / was the case for me), and it just comes down to deciding how horrifying the prospect is to take a class from a commie, versus a topic you're not into.

[JMeganSnow]

Actually, David, the schools I attended had a list of "you must take" courses. You must take 3 English Composition courses: ENG 101, 102, and 103. You must take 3 history courses, all in the same sequence (History of the Western World). You must take one political science course, one psychology course, one economics course, one sociology course, three science courses (either chem 1, 2, and 3 or biology 1, 2, and 3). You also had to take one computer course and at up to a certain level (pre-calculus) in math. You also had to take one Great Books class (I took Great Books: Philosophy, which was fun) and one Foreign Studies class (I took Japan).

If you weren't actually majoring in any of those departments, there was exactly one course available that you were allowed to take. You might be able to petition your major professor (assuming you've been accepted into a department at this point) to take other classes . . . assuming you meet the pre-requisites for them. The pre-reqs usually included one of the standard courses above. So really, all you'd be accomplishing would be to chew through your electives.

Of course, since *everyone* had to take those classes, almost all of them were *huge* (400+ people) and taught in a giant auditorium-style room. There wasn't much homework--except the lab sections in the science classses--just sitting through the lectures and taking the exams.

My school was pretty interesting, and the outright commie teaching the political science course was balanced out a bit by the outright libertarian teaching economics.

[adrock3215]

My suggestion is that you decide what your priorities really are, and integrate them with reality. I understand that you want classes in literature, economics and moral theory taught by Objectivists, but that is extremely unlikely to actually happen.

Actually if I could have it my way I wouldn't take courses in most of these subjects at all; I would simply take my economics classes and graduate.

That's neither here nor there though, because it isn't dealing with reality. You do have a valuable point, which is, for example: if one must take a humanities course, take the one that interests one the most. My decision to return to school was last-minute, and so when I registered courses I did not have a great amount to choose from. That being said, I probably should have waited until next semester to satisfy some of these more general requirements, and so that is my fault.

Megan: That sounds horrendous; I can't say my university is that bad.

[themadkat]

My college had "distributive requirements", where you had to take courses from a certain area but not any specific choice from that area (ie pick a history course but it doesn't have to be History 2). I thought this worked better. It's a shame you're actually mandated to take certain classes. My best advice is to find what excites you as best you can and try to find value in the subject matter, even if you don't like the way it's being taught. It's too bad the message you're getting is that your achievements are worthy of shame. I had a friend in a class one time where the professor literally described as a "soulless failure" anyone who wanted to make money and live comfortably. I'm betting that unlike my friend in this class she did not grow up in abject poverty with few material comforts. She had some gall calling my friend a soulless failure.

[dianahsieh]

What is some advice (those on here who have attended college) that you can give me to get through these horrendous few years? Does it get better when I begin taking classes related specifically to my major? I realize in most courses you have to shutup and agree with whatever socialist/Marxist viewpoint of the professor, otherwise you risk your grade. How have people managed to cope with this and stay in school?

A few suggestions:

(1) You should probably reconsider your decision to attend college. If you're interested in the education, you can probably educate yourself better than any college can. The mere fact that a degree *might* be useful in the future isn't a good reason to torture yourself for years. Just think about how much more you could learn reading history and economics on your own, for example.

(2) If you decide that you do wish to stay in college, you should be very selective about the professors from whom you take courses. I found a few professors in college that I loved. I didn't always agree with them, but they were knowledgeable, fair, interesting, and enthusiastic. I took nearly every couse they taught, even if I wasn't so interested in the subject-matter. That always worked out well -- whereas if I chose my courses based on the subject matter alone, I often hated the course.

Also, one strategy for finding better classes is to sign up for 1-2 more than you plan to take, then drop the less interesting of those after 1-2 weeks. That way, you've not missed any classes. Also, you could ask the professors of the courses that you might take next semester if you can sit in on a class in the current semester, to get a sense for their teaching style.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I don't think it will be getting better as you take the higher-level courses. Depending on the actual subject, it will tend to be further and further removed from reality -- especially in the humanities. If you already know how to deal with reality rationally and have Objectivism under your belt, yes, you will spot all of the errors and evasions of your professors; but there won't be much you can do about it except selfishly -- that is, you won't be able to convince your professors of much, but you can defend and protect your own mind; it all depends on how alert you are in class.

I used to take multi-level notes. In plain text, I would write down what the professor was saying that went along with the reading assignment. In square brackets [] I would write down what the professor thought of the reading assignment (very important to know on a test). For my own comments about either the author or the professor, I would write them in squiggle brackets {}. In this way, I could save my mind by focusing on reality, and at the same time know what to study for the tests.

A typical note taking by me might be something like this:

Aristotle thought that rationality was based on perception. [Everyone knows that true knowledge doesn't come from sense perception.] {It is important to realize that true knowledge comes from sensory perception of reality as it is, and to reason from there. This professor must be a Kantian!}

I had whole notebooks full of these types of notes, and I still have them. Not sure what I will do with them, but those who borrowed my notes really got a kick out of them

[athena glaukopis]

I've dropped out of school twice so far, but I'm still here :[

(1) You should probably reconsider your decision to attend college. If you're interested in the education, you can probably educate yourself better than any college can. The mere fact that a degree *might* be useful in the future isn't a good reason to torture yourself for years. Just think about how much more you could learn reading history and economics on your own, for example.

I agree with this, though I'm guilty of being in college because I'm too worried about not having a degree. :[

(2) If you decide that you do wish to stay in college, you should be very selective about the professors from whom you take courses. I found a few professors in college that I loved. I didn't always agree with them, but they were knowledgeable, fair, interesting, and enthusiastic. I took nearly every couse they taught, even if I wasn't so interested in the subject-matter. That always worked out well -- whereas if I chose my courses based on the subject matter alone, I often hated the course.

I also agree with this; the classes that I get the best grades in and enjoy the most are those where I like the teacher, regardless of the topic. I then take every class I can with them. Not only do I ensure my enjoyment of the class, but when you like a teacher, they (most likely) will come to like you as well, both coming together to ensure you get an A.

I feel your pain

[JASKN]

How have people managed to cope with this and stay in school?

Not to put a damper on your finding a way to get through it, but after several "go's," I never found a way to cope. For myself, the benefits didn't outweigh the costs of the "education." As has been mentioned, the most important thing is to identify your own goals and understand why or why not school is a good option for achieving them.

I had some key standards I wasn't willing to give up which made school an unattractive option, such not submitting myself to the mental hardship of sifting through propaganda, and taking learning at my own pace and covering only my own interests. But also, it was never my goal to become a lawyer or doctor, both of which require schooling. Is the prospect of managing money important enough to you? Does it require a college degree? Are there other goals in your mind which might trump managing money?

[West]

I'm where you're at now. Trying to figure out how to maneuver college so as to avoid damaging my brain. I find that it's terribly taxing trying to sift through all of the material without integrating the wrong things. I figured out early on that I hated the education system, and wouldn't have been able to get my high school diploma had I not found a Charter School where I could burn through all the shitty classes while working full time. Now I still work full time, but have begun taking college classes. The class that is a prerequisite to all the other classes I need to take is English 300 with the theme of 'The Presence of Others'. On the first day of class, the teacher tells the students that writing is pointless unless you are writing for other people, and then quotes a two-bit philosopher in saying "for excellence, the presence of others is always required".

I'm glad that most of the classes I'll have to take are engineering/math classes. I still fear for my physics courses though.

Thomas: I appreciate your note taking advice. I had a similar idea, and will begin testing it out.

Edited February 7, 2008 by West

[Alethiometry]

I am not sure if you're eligible, but I got out of two years of both English and History by taking the AP exams and doing well on them. I'm so glad I didn't have to deal with lots of lower-level humanities courses because I'm a science major.

I've notice a huge disparity in the content of the humanities courses I'm taking now and the science classes I take for my major. While chemistry classes teach me to deal with reality, the majority of my humanities classes have not served my ultimate goal: to get a job as a scientist.

I suggest you do one of two things if you are going to stay the course:

1) Try to find the most reasonable professors you can.

Oftentimes, different professors will teach a course in completely different manners. I dropped an English course (technical writing for science majors) last year because the instructor assigned lots of group work. She also cared how we "felt" about the formatting of scientific journals and political issues. Employers do not care how you feel about political issues or formatting. They want you to be able to communicate effectively. I took the exact same course last semester and my teacher was one of the best I've had. Every assignment pertained to how we would be communicating to employers and other scientists in the real world. She gave many examples of how improper communication can have disastrous results. The course was so relevant and useful just thinking about it makes me want to go thank her in person.

Many colleges let you drop and add courses anytime within the first couple weeks of the semester. I suggest visiting many sections of the same course the first week to find which one is most palatable to you. Talking to the instructor about the nature of the course, looking at the syllabus, and checking out the required readings will often help you decide whether you will like a course or not.

2) Use this opportunity to exercise your thinking skills

I was stuck in an English class where none of the required reading was philosophically sound. We drew pictures, acted out plays, and had lots of pointless discussions in a sophomore-level modern European literature class. However, I used this as an opportunity to hone my skills. I tried to figure out where the authors were coming from philosophically. I made every attempt in class discussions to defend my unique position. Overall, I think it was good for me, albeit not as useful as the technical writing class.

Hope that helps.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I'll tell you my story; it may give you ideas that you can apply.

I went to the same university that Diana Hsieh is now teaching at (as she pursues her doctorate). (1982-1986.) I was an engineering major and we had to take 24 hours of "social humanistic" electives. The only restrictions were 6 hours had to be English literature and no more than 6 could be a foreign language.

I got out of English (Pseudo)Literature by getting AP credit from high school. (six hours down before I even walked through the door.) I don't imagine I would have been unbearably bludgeoned by commies in that class; I just hated the subject because they were showcasing crap and calling it literature. (My high school friends wondered why, if I hated the subject that much, I was taking the AP course--it was to get me out of taking it one more year!)

I took microeconomics (4 hours) which is relatively hard to commie-ize. I took a class in Soviet foreign policy taught by the token anti-communist on campus (alas he is retired now if not dead)--a man who had fought both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in WWII because he had the grand misfortune to be born in eastern Poland (now Belarus), and got successively invaded by both barbarisms (3 hours). This was an upper-division class (I actually had to get the professor's permission to take it) and the only grade less than an A I got on a "social humanistic elective." I also took intro to logic (3 hours) (also hard to corrupt) and first semester Russian (5 hours.) That leaves me three hours short.

I took macroeconomics one summer from the Colorado Springs campus, loaded with economic conservatives. Problem solved.

I was luckier than Megan in that I had a lot more flexibility than she did. I used it in quite a few creative ways (taking macro at a different, less commie-infested campus was particularly sneaky, I thought).

I did benefit from a tactic that Diana Hsieh mentioned--the semester I took microeconomics, I also signed up for an introductory political science class. Micro had graphs and a basically mathematical nature, the prof in Poli Sci defined politics as deciding who gets what from the economy. You already know which course I dropped like a hot potato.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Steve D'Ippolito

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I went to a Catholic liberal arts university that had a core curriculum in which I had to take courses in literary tradition, history, a foreign language, and at least intro to philosophy in order to get my dual degree in physics and philosophy. So, for those of you going into a specific engineering or science or other type of "hard science" courses, I think taking all of those courses most definitely gave me a better perspective on the nature of man, and I was able to confirm first-hand many of the things Miss Rand talked about in her essays. But, I was fortunate. For the most part, for these classes we used the original works (translated into English, of course), rather than some textbook that had already "digested" it into meaningless slogans and misunderstandings. The professor may well have been way off in his understanding of these historic documents and achievements, but by being able to read them first-hand, I was free to come to my own conclusions.

I mean, you are probably thinking, "What the heck am I going to do with lit trad when I go into biochemistry (or physics or business)?" or "Is reading the Iliad really going to help me maneuver in the stock market?" But, I can assure you that having that context, if done correctly, can really help you to grasp a wide range of materials that you can put to use in your field. Unfortunately, as I have discussed in another thread, most businesses do not consider these to be valuable, as no one would hire me straight out of college based on that degree combination from a liberal arts university. Personally, I think it is an injustice, but many businesses simply thought I had no skills for working, which is total bull.

So, if you want to get hired into some technical field, it may well do you better to go to a technical school or a non-liberal arts university, where they tend to train you in specific tasks and procedures, rather than more general knowledge. That is, if you don't want to know anything except for that narrow field. I'm not mocking that kind of a choice, as it will probably get you a better paying job; however if you ever do want to gain a greater intellectual perspective of man and his place in the universe, then you ought to read those great works on your own after school.

If you will be going into management, that liberal arts background will probably do you well, though you will probably have to get an MBA to become financially successful.

But the point is that all of that past history and context is what got us to where we are today, and knowing that can make a difference in how you handle tense situations where you just can't figure out where the other guy is coming from. If you don't have that context, it may well come across to you as totally perplexing.

If you are not the type of person who wants to be taking up intellectual issues, then go straight to tech school, get your engineering degree or your trading degree or computer programming or whatever; these seem to work best for the fast track to making a lot of money very quickly out of college. But if you already know how to make a living in the stock market, getting that more general degree may be more helpful to you intellectually and contextually.

It all depends on what you want out of life and what you want to pay for when you are going to college and what your expectations are once graduating.

My educational background was very helpful in me writing a novel, which I need to revise and then get published one of these years.

[Tenure]

Thomas,

Out of interest, what sort of magical educational-compound was this? The 'studying from the original texts' thing really excites me. Was it a College which focused on integrating the English and the Philosophy, or did you have to do that yourself? If so, how?

[DavidOdden]

Naturally, things are going to suck if you end up enrolling is whatever's available, but here are some suggestions for the literature requirement -- Classical Foundations, Greek and Roman Mythology, Greek Literature in Translation, Roman Literature in Translation, Masterworks of Russian Literature, Ancient Celtic Culture and Civilization, Germanic Mythology, Viking Culture and Civilization, Introduction to Shakespeare. I'd have no problem being happy with one of those. That sucking diversity requirement? Well you can dispose of it with Introduction to Biological Anthropology, Introduction to Archaeology, Selected Musical Cultures of the World, and even Structure of American Sign Language (it is likely that this course would have zero political content, but it would be a difficult math-like class -- I'm surprised they got away with including that).

However, the larger point about perfunctory college-attendance remains. There are three valid reasons to attend college. First, to take a small set of specific courses and then leave, for example accounting or economics. It may be difficult to just take a half-dozen classes of interest without taking the other stuff, but it may be possible. Second, to get a general education -- which implies that you accept the option of listening to and even battling with a commie literature professor. Third, to get a specific certificate that you can use for something else. I would be surprised if the third were really true for you; it doesn't seem like the second is either; so what motivated your decision? (Having time to kill isn't actually a reason to attend college). I would re-examine the assumed professional benefit of a degree.

[adrock3215]

so what motivated your decision? (Having time to kill isn't actually a reason to attend college). I would re-examine the assumed professional benefit of a degree.

Actually I am attending because I would like to either manage money or work at one of the top-tier investment banks. The undergraduate school part is not really too valuable in the long-run, as I am planning to go on to graduate and get an MBA. Point is that college seems to be the best (not the only) option for the future career path I want, and that isn't so much because of the education one receives, but more for the degree one ends up with. It's hard to convince someone to invest a few million dollars in you and give you complete discrection to let you manage it when all I can show him is a list of books I've read and a track record saying I made a few hundred thousand dollars within the "last few years." Some people make it this way, but they typically have wealthy family or friends that they know who are willing to take that leap of faith. On the other hand, it's also hard to walk into Goldman Sachs office at 85 Broad St. and give them a list of books I've read and ask for a position working on their trading desk.

Thanks to everyone for the responses so far! I've read them all. Thomas, I actually take notes like you do too in some of my courses. Useful to help sort of things and integrate them.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Out of interest, what sort of magical educational-compound was this? The 'studying from the original texts' thing really excites me. Was it a College which focused on integrating the English and the Philosophy, or did you have to do that yourself? If so, how?

My university considered itself to be one of the preservers of Western Civilization. I'm not sure all Catholic universities are this way, but realize that for a thousand years or more, it was the Catholic monks who hand copied ancient texts in monasteries. It was also the Catholics who destroyed Western Civilization by enforcing Augustinian Catholicism onto all of Europe prior to the Renaissance. After the Renaissance (after Aquinas), it was the Catholics who began large scale teaching of the ancient texts. I mean, sometimes the Catholics offer such a mixed case historically, that it is difficult to evaluate them. The actual philosophy of Catholicism that I grew up with was such a mixture -- encouraging intellectual studies via Aquinas but suppressing the desire and motivation to live on Earth via Augustine. If it wasn't for Objectivism, I'd still be stuck in that quandary.

I went to a Catholic university for two reasons: 1) I knew they had that attitude of preserving the great works of history, and 2) I wanted to confront the philosophy of Catholicism directly after having studied Objectivism for about seven years so that I could purge it from my system consciously.

It might interest you to know that I could openly be an Objectivist on that campus, writing letters to the editor promoting Objectivism in the school newspaper on a regular basis using my real name, without being downgraded for the effort. It was really only in a Bible studies class (one of the core requirements) that the teacher, a priest, told me that I had to leave my philosophy outside the door to his classroom. I never understood what he wanted in that class -- I guess to convert me -- but he didn't give me a failing grade; that's known as Catholic Grace

So, if you can develop a "Catholic filter" while going through college, that might be an alternative. Just be careful how you advocate Objectivism. Be factual, but don't come right out and accuse them of having destroyed Western Civilization for a thousand years and you will probably be OK.

In any case, it is better to be able to study the original texts, rather than a summary textbook that might have gotten it all wrong.

As to my notes taking, I did it that way in order to better focus on the course (and the extra reading I took upon myself) so as not to absorb what the professor said subconsciously. It takes more effort, but you have to sit in the class for an hour or so anyhow, so you might as well enjoy it by writing posts against the teacher in your notes.

Also, I found that one ought to only promote one's own philosophy (Objectivism or otherwise) during those tests or assignments where that is asked for; otherwise, regurgitate. Though one time, for a Renaissance History class, the assignment was to write about a philosophy and how it impacted history (i.e how did Martin Luther effect history). I took a chance and wrote my final paper on how Objectivism was going to influence the world history, and turned it in a month before the deadline in case I had to re-write it. The professor was very nice about it, claiming that I didn't fulfill the assignment, but I told her I did write about a philosophy and how it would impact history. In the end, she accepted it and gave me an "A"

[dadmonson]

Have you ever thought about medication, adrock3215? You might have ADD. I'm on some meds to help me focus better, and it has made a huge difference in my concentration, as far as listening to monotonous teachers, and studying subjects that I'm not interested in. More people are on them than you probably think.

[4reason]

What is some advice (those on here who have attended college) that you can give me to get through these horrendous few years? Does it get better when I begin taking classes related specifically to my major? I realize in most courses you have to shutup and agree with whatever socialist/Marxist viewpoint of the professor, otherwise you risk your grade. How have people managed to cope with this and stay in school?

Several members have suggested you reconsider your decision to go back to college, and I can't help but to agree, especially given my personal experience. Believe it or not, you can educate yourself outside of an institution. I am one of those crazy people who thinks that your work should stand up for your character and your ability, not some piece of paper that only, in essence, says, I went to this institution for this long and took all the required classes. Big deal. I earned my BA in history and graduated at the top of my class, but that's not to say that I didn't have my challenges in college. I nearly dropped out my senior year because my honors' thesis just seemed too overwhelming at first. I was fortunate, however, in that for every bad professor I had in college I had two good ones. My mentor for my thesis is especially praise worthy. The emphasis he placed on helping me spot and examine bias in history not only helped me academically with my thesis, but it made history that much more enjoyable and rich for me.

I always did well in school, though, so it takes an exceptionally bad situation to make me resentful of the experience. I am what you would call "booksmart," and have always done well when pouring through texts and enjoy it thoroughly. I am always towing around some kind of research in my backpack which accompanies me everywhere, even though I am not in school anymore.

Recently, however, I have really initiated efforts to return to school and pursue a PhD in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience and/or Cognitive Psychology. Just yesterday I met with a professor at the University of Denver to go over my transcripts and what I need to do to achieve what I want. She has become a good friend of mine, having gone through a very similar academic expereince as me, but we both realize that she would not be the ideal mentor for me to study under. What I want to pursue in graduate research just simply does not exist out there; there are no professors who specialize in what I want to do, and this is really proving to be quite the obstacle. The advice I have gotten from faculty, professionals and graduate students in this field is that -- get this-- I would be better off not pursuing the degree and just focus on the knowledge and research. In recent weeks I have been plesantly surprised by how much people are willing to help you and share their research with you simply because they know you're serious about learning: the fact that I am not a student has not proven to be an obstacle., Why, even the professor I met with yesterday offered me a position in her research lab; I just need to figure out a way to make my schedule accomodate that. I have found that most people also like what I have to bring to the table in terms of my experience in educating young children and my knowledge of Montessori and other effective educational methods for young children.

I have something to offer them, and they have something to offer me. Degrees aren't part of the equation.

There are lots of examples of people who thrive in what they do, and are respected for what they do, even though they don't have a degree that "proves" it. I believe a person should be judged by their merits and capabilities, and the more years I tack under my belt in life, the more I realize that a fancy piece of paper is certainly not the best way to assess a person's abilities. As a fictional example, look at Howard Roark Closer to home, I look at people like my boyfriend, who, despite having no college degree in his field of modern furniture, lighting and design, earns more respect from many clients than they give to others in the field who have all sorts of training. What is his secret? He reads, and reads and reads. Industry publications, manufacturers' product information, design magazines (domestic and foreign), history of design, etc. He also makes efforts to attend and host as many design events as he can. He recently hosted an event devoted to creating innovative, portable, and cheap housing for refugee camps around the world: to give people a sense of property. There were all kinds of people at the event: architects, interior designers, engineers, students, furniture designers, physicists, etc. The humanitarian aspect of it took a back seat as we got carried away brainstorming innovative designs using all the new materials that are out there and underused in design at the moment. He puts himself in situations that help him grow, and I am already beginning to do the same with my own "educational" pursuits. The education I really want is not going to come from any university; it's simply so innovative that people are deeply intrigued but unwilling to commit their resources to it. But everyone, so far, has expressed a great willingness to help me in other ways... More meaningful and effective ways. Presently, I am not entirely sure if I want to formally pursue the degree or not. It's the knowledge and outcome I want, but I starting to think that it is MORE possible without the degree. Creating my own program -- without the constraints of mandatory courses in irrelevant areas-- will be just as likely to help me grow.

Is the same kind of approach possible for you at all? What is it, exactly, you want to gain from earning a degree? Is there no ther way to earn prestige? Is it mandatory to get where you want to be?

[Benpercent]

Have you ever thought about medication, adrock3215? You might have ADD. I'm on some meds to help me focus better, and it has made a huge difference in my concentration, as far as listening to monotonous teachers, and studying subjects that I'm not interested in. More people are on them than you probably think.

Before doing something of that degree, I would recommend practicing some concentration techniques. For instance, I usually use the "be here" and the "spiderweb" methods. The first one being where you, either physically or mentally, say "be here" every time your focus drifts off in order to gently bring it back. The spiderweb technique, on the other hand, is one method to help in different environments. Simply put, just let other distractions "be out there" while you're working on something; try your best not to acknowledge any outside annoyance unless necessary.

At first it can be very difficult to do such as these if you're used to letting your mind wander all the time, but it can be tamed if you struggle enough. There are also plenty of other methods to be found on the internet for free (fee-less information I mean).

Edit: 4reason, thank you for putting into words my very own current frustrations.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Benpercent

[adrock3215]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am nearing the end of the semester and I was gradually able to cope with the ludicriousness. Although I mainly stay away, I did approach a couple professors of mine at various times. Forgetting the overarching umbrella theme of post-Kantianism, the theme that seems to run through all areas of study is that political power determines history. One professor stated to me (paraphrasing), that "books aren't published unless they benefit someone. Theories aren't expounded upon unless they benefit someone. A professor can't talk about whatever he wants in class, because he may lose his job. I want to sit at home and read books all day, but I can't, because I have to survive and live, therefore I have to work." Of course, my response was: If ideas don't determine history, and historic events are only done if they benefit someone, then how would that person know what benefits him or her anyway? Answer: Uhhhhhh, well, I once believed a similar thing...

My father works for the government (NASA) and he tends to have a viewpoint in line with this reasoning, that historic events only occur because they benefit somebody, i.e. the king, politician, or person in power. This may well be the case within the public sector workforce, and perhaps that is why these people approach history the way that they do. I feel as if I have coem to a deeper understanding of why people hold this viewpoint.

Edited April 21, 2008 by adrock3215

[DarkWaters]

One professor stated to me (paraphrasing), that "books aren't published unless they benefit someone. Theories aren't expounded upon unless they benefit someone. A professor can't talk about whatever he wants in class, because he may lose his job. I want to sit at home and read books all day, but I can't, because I have to survive and live, therefore I have to work." Of course, my response was: If ideas don't determine history, and historic events are only done if they benefit someone, then how would that person know what benefits him or her anyway? Answer: Uhhhhhh, well, I once believed a similar thing...

Of course books are not published unless if they benefit someone. What kind of publisher would publish a book that is will not be read or appreciated to the point to justify the time, energy and money to publish it!? Why else should he? Thank you, Professor Obvious.

Needless to say, your response is very much valid.

[adrock3215]

Here's something that I thought you all might like:

So I'm still trudging my way through. I am taking a course from the Philosophy Department called Social and Political Philosophy, which basically covers various political theories throughout history and their corresponding thinkers, i.e. Utilitarianism, Liberalism, Marxism, Libertarianism, etc.

From the syllabus I received on the first day: "It is an assumption of the course that altruism can be justified..."

[Thales]

Here's something that I thought you all might like:

So I'm still trudging my way through. I am taking a course from the Philosophy Department called Social and Political Philosophy, which basically covers various political theories throughout history and their corresponding thinkers, i.e. Utilitarianism, Liberalism, Marxism, Libertarianism, etc.

From the syllabus I received on the first day: "It is an assumption of the course that altruism can be justified..."

Must be the Ayn Rand effect. Seriously, I doubt they'd have made that statement if it were not for her. Haha!

Happily, we know that assumption to be a bad one.