I will graduating from high school in a few weeks, and am planning on going to community college next fall. But I was wondering if this is immoral because in California, and I think most states, the cost of your tuition is subsidized.
So I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this. Thanks.
Go for it!
If you graduate and get a nice job you’ll be paying far, far more in taxes than any subsidy you benefit from. You can’t sit and try to balance it out and make sure you take out only what you put it. Taxation is far too complex and insidious to have any clue. Down the road you can use the money or power from the education to make a bigger impact in a positive direction. Of course it would still be proper to vote against any funding of the school with government cash and, if able, to speak out against it. There’s no reason us moral people should handicap ourselves and let those who would want to mooch receive any sort of competitive advantage against us.
Brule said it. You will be robbed tenfold to pay for this. You didn’t get to choose that the state be a mafia organisation rather than a proper government.
Someone once asked Ayn a similar question about taking advantage of a government program. Her response was, essentially: “The program exists. Use it.” So long as you are not positioning yourself for government favors, there is nothing immoral about using a program that will exist whether you take advantage of it or not. So long as you do not vote for or advocate the program, you are not violating your ethics.
Cool. Thanks for the replies guys.
Don’t waste your time with college!! Chances are that you will find it costly, unnecessarily drawn out, inefficient, uninspiring and a waste of time in every respect (except, perhaps, for reaffirming the value of one’s time on this earth). Take a few years to study in the library on your own. The internet and good libraries have made college largely obsolete; for education, anyhow. These bastard professors can’t teach you anything you can’t learn on your own. But they will make you learn useless garbage that you wouldn’t ever waste your time with if you weren’t jumping through their hoops to get the coveted degree.
If you plan to pursue a career in a field requiring live demonstration and/or hands-on work in a well-equipped facility then a technical school might be for you.
It is tempting on many levels to go to college. Scholarships/grants make it especially tantalizing. IT IS NOT WORTH IT. That money doesn’t even begin to reimburse you for the time you could have spent pursuing your own interests unfettered, working and learning a craft. You will probably wind up more successful more quickly, and much happier.
Won’t it be nearly impossible to be taken seriously without a college education? Many jobs don’t even look at your applications unless you have a college degree, right?
It truly depends upon the field, the employer and your ability to show what you can do - which IS, incidentally, your degree and something that no institution can grant you. Perhaps you can provide some idea of what you want to do so that the conversation is more concrete?
Doctor- I implore you to ignore Mr. Dorfman. Professors are not vampires/ boogeymen. Earning an education and gaining in knowledge is always worth it. Growing in wisdom is never immoral. Yes, it is near impossible to be taken seriously without a degree, and yes, college degrees will help you earn more money, which is always a plus. 
At a college, you will still be able to learn at a library, but with the added benefit of people who know the subject also helping you pursue your intrests.
Mr. Dorfman- I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library.
Mr. Dorfman- I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library.
He also mentined learning by practice, on the job. Why ignore that part, doesn’t help your point?
And, as you know, it is illegal to become a medical doctor without a degree. So, both those details you left out considered, you don’t have an argument with this.
Your only solid point was that in college, sometimes, teachers can help you learn. But that’s not always true, plenty of times college is a monumental waste of time.
Doctor- I implore you to ignore Mr. Dorfman. Professors are not vampires/ boogeymen.
>Professors are just that in too many instances, particularly in the so-called social sciences, several semesters of which are REQUIRED before any specialization or delving into what you’re there to study takes place. You will pay for your own brainwashing but they call it general education, becoming well rounded; pick your favorite cliche. Or - if you know enough to refute their nonsense, you will either incur effective ostracism among your automaton peers, sabotage your grade or simply shut up and sit there learning through clenched teeth, waiting for the day when you can finally take a class that has to do with your chosen field of study. I’ve even had a music professor opining about the war in Iraq in class. Perhaps he thought it would improve our “ears” to hear his oh-so erudite voice. 
Earning an education and gaining in knowledge is always worth it. Growing in wisdom is never immoral.
Uh-huh, and what does this have to do with college?
Yes, it is near impossible to be taken seriously without a degree,
What do you base this statement upon? By WHOM is it impossible to be “taken seriously”? And how do you define “serious”? Are you telling me that if you were running a small business and you had an applicant show you, on the spot, that he could perform the duties required of him, you would pass him up over a degree-holder with less demonstrable experience? You would surely reconsider how “seriously” you felt about placing your stock in a degree when your business was toppling as a result of hiring mediocre employees. Let me qualify and say that getting a degree doesn’t mean a trade off with actually learning something. But think about the way classes in college drag, how much erroneous information you are required to retain and how much time and money you spend on books, commuting, fees, etc. Even if you had a “free ride” to school, you would be better off learning on your own schedule driven by your own internal motivation.
and yes, college degrees will help you earn more money, which is always a plus
I have serious doubts about this ubiquitous claim. A college degree won’t “help” you to do anything. It is supposed to be an assurance of your competence in a given field. It is not your ticket to a high-paying job if you don’t know what you’re doing. And it is not something that, if you don’t have one, will bar your future irrevocably, relegating you to 10$/hr desk jobs. Make your ability and confidence to get things done your investment. Most intelligent employers can smell incompetence a mile away. What may become a real concern is the employers (typically in the corporate world), who resent your MASTERY of some set of skills. This is a really scary phenomenon. They will hate you for being great at what you do.
At a college, you will still be able to learn at a library, but with the added benefit of people who know the subject also helping you pursue your intrests.
If you mean the professors, you don’t need to be enrolled in classes to consult with them. I’ve done it and so have others.
Mr. Dorfman- I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library.
The state in which one practices requires doctors and lawyers and accountants (and other professionals) to hold a degree from an accredited institution to practice (doesn’t mean a uni necessarily). Most doctors, incidentally, receive their real training not from their university, but shadowing practicing doctors in local hospitals, learning the skills in situ. The University of Florida, for instance, operates in exactly this manner.
Don’t waste your time with college!!
I’m curious to know what you taught yourself. Presumably not medicine or nuclear engineering. Or is your blanket condemnation really aimed at social sciences, arts and humanities? I’m asking about both your professional training and your general education (where the case for self-education is more plausible). What method did you use to validate your self-education, for example, how do you know that you actually learned the truth about US history, and didn’t simply delude yourself?
I want to go into journalism.
I’m curious to know what you taught yourself. Presumably not medicine or nuclear engineering.
What can be done is relevant, what I did is not. But since you asked:
I went to college for 4 and a half years. I studied classical voice and Portuguese, which I speak rather well even though I’ve never been to Brazil or Portugal. Our Portuguese teacher was phenomenal but I was awarded the department’s language excellence award because I was the top student in the class. This was thanks to my own efforts - struggling through books and movies and articles in Portuguese and looking up every single word I didn’t know, going to Brazilian restaurants and seeking conversations, etc. I run into some of my former colleagues from the class who just did the given work; they barely remember a lick of it, except for the Spanish speakers. But they mangle it with Spanish. I give credit to a few of professors for helping me along the way, particularly my voice teacher. However, the large majority of what I know about vocal pedagogy, piano, and composition (particularly this last) I learned on my own through books, manuals and online materials. Occasionally I would consult a professor, say - the cello instructor about whether or not a certain passage were feasible for the cello with which my acquaintance is purely theoretical.
Or is your blanket condemnation really aimed at social sciences, arts and humanities?
I made no “blanket condemnation”:
“If you plan to pursue a career in a field requiring live demonstration and/or hands-on work in a well-equipped facility then a technical school might be for you.”
“The state in which one practices requires doctors and lawyers and accountants (and other professionals) to hold a degree from an accredited institution to practice (doesn’t mean a uni necessarily). Most doctors, incidentally, receive their real training not from their university, but shadowing practicing doctors in local hospitals, learning the skills in situ. The University of Florida, for instance, operates in exactly this manner.”
Certain professions require degrees by law. Some professions require extensive technical/hands-on training in a well stocked, up-to-date lab/facility. In these cases I don’t condemn attending colleges. I would, however, recommend attending a technical school/conservatory over a university to avoid two years of irrelevant courses.
I’m asking about both your professional training and your general education (where the case for self-education is more plausible). What method did you use to validate your self-education, for example, how do you know that you actually learned the truth about US history, and didn’t simply delude yourself?
My professional training, though officially incomplete (I dropped college this year and just got my associates), has not been an issue. For both my teaching position in a private studio and my job as assistant director of music at a large church here in Jacksonville, Florida, I essentially auditioned. I insisted upon it. They heard me, asked me some questions regarding my knowledge and I got the jobs and have been promoted in the church since then and have grown my studio size. My skill and knowledge are valued in the marketplace and that is the test of validity.
Define “general” education. I can do math, read, write and know a thing or two about science and history. Beyond that, I ought not to be required to spend my own money to take classes which bear no relation to my specialty.
Do you suppose you have a better chance of gleaning an unbiased view of history from a college professor than through your own researches? Surely you are aware of the pink streak running through just about every university in the country today.
I want to go into journalism.
Hmm, I really know nothing about this field. Here are the first two things that caught my eye when I googled “Journalism degree”:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/p12s01-legn.html
http://everything2.com/title/To%2520what%2…journalism%253F
I hope this helps.
I am an engineering student and aside from learning some extraneous things I do not see any harm in my education. I knocked out most of my general requirements in high school so I am pretty much only on core classes. My teachers have been great and I am pretty sure they will continue to be. On top of that I have access to tons of resources and I am working between semesters of college.
I admit there are some flaws but I think part of it is what you make it and the other part is the quality of the education you choose.
I made no “blanket condemnation”
If you need a refresher, consult this. For example “Don’t waste your time with college!!”, “These bastard professors can’t teach you anything you can’t learn on your own. But they will make you learn useless garbage that you wouldn’t ever waste your time with if you weren’t jumping through their hoops to get the coveted degree.”, " IT IS NOT WORTH IT. That money doesn’t even begin to reimburse you for the time you could have spent pursuing your own interests unfettered, working and learning a craft. You will probably wind up more successful more quickly, and much happier.". And here, I note “You will pay for your own brainwashing but they call it general education, becoming well rounded; pick your favorite cliche.”
I don’t see any recognition of reality here – that you have to be actively engaged in your education, that you are really only complaining about a minority of instructors and just certain areas of university education. I don’t see any recognition of the distinction between “education” versus “job training”. Of course it’s not your responsibility to recognize these facts; anyone reading these pages can look at what you have to offer and decide on their own. I’m simply pointing out that the problems in whose direction you vaguely gesture have a definite nature, and that identifying the actual problem is what is useful.
Certain professions require degrees by law. Some professions require extensive technical/hands-on training in a well stocked, up-to-date lab/facility. In these cases I don’t condemn attending colleges. I would, however, recommend attending a technical school/conservatory over a university to avoid two years of irrelevant courses.
Case in point, since I mentioned nuclear engineering, does DeVry offer a degree in nuclear engineering that renders the student competent to run a nuclear reactor?
I want to point out that I agree with what I might generously assume is the “point” of part of your posts – that (too) many students attend universities mindlessly, which has caused the horrifying effect that you can actually observe now on education. At least 50% of students attending universities should not be attending universities, since they are unsuited for university education. I do strongly support people attending tech schools for certain kinds of job training. However, there are also some kinds of job training that cannot be garnered at tech schools, simply because tech schools don’t have the relevant competence. If you need to learn how to do research and think independently, if you have to learn how to create the theoretical models that are taught in universities, if you’re not looking for “plug and chug” training, then a vocational school is probably not the best choice.
My skill and knowledge are valued in the marketplace and that is the test of validity.
And that is a perfectly valid test if your interest is “what will others accept”.
Define “general” education. I can do math, read, write and know a thing or two about science and history.
I don’t need to define general education. Your answer is sufficiently informative to me, for my purposes. If all that you want to know is a thing of two about science and history, then I know that you do not have a life-long interest in a generally active mind. I don’t mean that as a criticism: I accept that some people are just there for the information.
Beyond that, I ought not to be required to spend my own money to take classes which bear no relation to my specialty.
So returning to the vocational school versus university issue, I agree in the following sense. As a student in a university, your position is completely wrong and indefensible, so you should be required to take classes that someone else says you should take if you want a particular degree. On the other hand, we have no objection to you paying us money to take a class in Jazz Guitar 303 or Portugues 202. If you want a degree from a university, then there are certain things you have to do. If you don’t want to do those things, then you should not get a university degree (and hopefully we won’t give you one).
However, something that you missed, possibly because you opted out of getting a general education, is that the actual content of general educational requirements at many / most universities fails to actually satisfy the conditions of being a “general educational requirement”. Your complaints ought to be directed to the specific content of university requirements, and not at universities in general.
Do you suppose you have a better chance of gleaning an unbiased view of history from a college professor than through your own researches?
I dunno: it’s a false dichotomy that you’re offering. Your choices are not limited to a biased view from a university history professor, versus an uninformed and methodologically flawed view from your own subjective, self-validating approach to history. How would you propose self-validating your own conclusions about the laws of subatomic physics? Or the nature of cause and effect in politics and culture? Googling a few technical terms used in physics does not constitute validating that knowledge, so what I want to know is how you can reduce your higher level knowledge to axioms, and achieve certainty in the Peikovian sense.
Surely you are aware of the pink streak running through just about every university in the country today.
Painfully; I see more pink from students than from professors, though that’s because there are more students than professors. This is a fact not limited to universities. So apparently, you have reached a more pessimistic conclusion, that there is no hope for education and that there is no longer any point in engaging students in the hopes of finding a rational mind who might eventually themselves engage in educating others rationally. Well, I don’t accept that conclusion, but I admit that there isn’t a whole lot that I personally can point to as evidence that you’re mistaken.
Mr. Dorfman- There is nothing wrong with learning other things besides your main focus, and it can be very useful. For example, if Dr. Chiill here ultimately gets a job in journalism (I hope you do, Dr.!!), but, eventually is layed off (I hope that does not happen), he will need to seek a new job. If he is unable to find a job in journalism, and is unwilling to flip burgers, he may well find a decent-paying interim job that requires skills in a non-journalism field. Also, even if the people next to you are morons, you can simply ignore them, or look at it as a chance to learn alternate points of view, and thus be able to solidify your own. As to your music prof., shame on him, but, thankfully, every professor is not your music teacher.
My comments regarding “Growing in wisdom is never immoral.” was directed to Dr. Chiill’s question, which asked the morality of community college, and not twords you. Likewise, when I said “Yes, it is near impossible to be taken seriously without a degree”, I was answering the Doctor’s question.
As to the fact that college helps people earn more money - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html
Unless, of course, its all lies by those darn evil profs…
When I said “I have never heard of a medical doctor learning his/her practice in a library”, I was critisizing your rather silly claim that “The internet and good libraries have made college largely obsolete; for education, anyhow.”
You said that you went to college, and learned to speak Portuguese. Congratulations! You also said this was through your own efforts. Naturally, you have to put effort into something that you want to learn. However, I am assuming that you did not learn an entire language with no help whatsoever from the teachers or other students also learning the language.
DaveOdden was correct in saying that you made a blanket condemnation,sice you condemned all professors by saying “These bastard professors can’t teach you anything you can’t learn on your own. But they will make you learn useless garbage that you wouldn’t ever waste your time with if you weren’t jumping through their hoops to get the coveted degree.” Sounds like a blanket condemnation.
If you believe that everyone else is lazy, nazi, communist, or out to destroy your life and society and eventually kill and eat you, you will not be able to trust anyone/ hold an intelligent conversation/ walk out the door. If you do run into a biased person, ignore them. Their thoughts can’t reach in your head and steal your brain, much less wash it.
What sort of foil hat do you wear?
Jake Ellison- Yes, it does help my point. At a college, there is (unless it is an exceptionally, exceptionally, bad school) much easier access to learning on the job. Several colleges that I know of are able to get students internships at 1/4 of the cost it would take for a non-student.
Dr. Chiill- If you choose to go to college, yes, you will see people with different points of view, porbably including communists and nazis. However, I do not believe that their presence will somehow make you a communist or a nazi. If you happen to run into them, just use the brain you have and ignore them. The same follows for drinking alcohol under the age of 21. You have a choice, and you can simply refuse to drink/ ignore the damn communists. Go for the college.
Peripeteia, thank you for the encouraging words.
You’re very welcome, Dr.!
Good Luck with journalism!! 