I think you should go to college if it sounds pleasant and fulfilling to go to one of the colleges you could go to (as Saul stated colleges have many fancy amenities) and you are OK with sacrificing:
The cost of the preparatory work you need to do to be admitted at that college.
The cost of the tuition itself.
4+ years of your career and adult life.
in order to do something pleasant and fulfilling. You should also go to college if you don’t have any plan to get a job you like without a college degree, but you do have a plan to do it with a college degree, since it’s very important to get a job you like. Although, given that college is a huge investment, maybe you should have made that plan, or be making it.
If you aren’t looking forward to spending 4 more years in school a lot, and you could get a reasonable job without going to college, I think it would be crazy to go to college.
I don’t think most people are likely to be confused about which of these groups they are in. If Saul is confused I apologize but I think he must be a rare case.
The other arguments Saul made in his opening statement about why you might want to go to college seem very weak to me:
It’s a strong Chesterton’s fence.
This is an argument for why a fully generic high school student who knows nothing should go to college. It’s not an argument for why it’s good to get a college degree.
Defaults are for what a person with no information should do without thinking. Everyone at 16 has a huge amount of information about themselves, their dreams, their abilities, how they relate to school, how they relate to others, what the contemporaneous world is like. The default is not responsive to any of that. It’s completely inappropriate to be applying some super-general policy about norms and conformity when considering some giant extremely specific high-stakes offer that is only about your own life. This is what I disagree with the most in this dialogue.
General upkeeping of norms/institutions is good.
No it’s not. If it’s not in someone’s self-interest to get a college degree, there’s no way it’s in the social interest for there to be a norm of everyone getting college degrees.
Some people may be totally unproductive and/or be a drain on society (e.g. crime) if they don’t go.
That’s a reason to not be a career criminal, not a reason to get a college degree.
By the way, it’s pretty unproductive to go to college for 4 years while someone else pays for your room, board, and entertainment.
I don’t believe there are a substantial number of people who are incapable of being productive after 12 years of high school, but then if you send them to college for 4 years, now they can be productive. That doesn’t make sense. The way you would train a very low-skill person to be productive is by training them on a specific job, not sending them to college.
Defaults are for what a person with no information should do without thinking. Everyone at 16 has a huge amount of information about themselves, their dreams, their abilities, how they relate to school, how they relate to others, what the contemporaneous world is like. The default is not responsive to any of that. It’s completely inappropriate to be applying some super-general policy about norms and conformity when considering some giant extremely specific high-stakes offer that is only about your own life. This is what I disagree with the most in this dialogue.
I think your counter-point to the chesterton’s fence point is pretty good; however I think it’s genuinely hard for many teenagers to understand what the choice is that they’re making. I don’t think I had much idea.
I really like the option that someone (I think Saul) proposed where you go to college for one year, with a commitment to take a gap year for the second year, after which you actually know what you’re choosing between.
I think you should go to college if it sounds pleasant and fulfilling to go to one of the colleges you could go to (as Saul stated colleges have many fancy amenities) and you are OK with sacrificing:
The cost of the preparatory work you need to do to be admitted at that college.
The cost of the tuition itself.
4+ years of your career and adult life.
in order to do something pleasant and fulfilling. You should also go to college if you don’t have any plan to get a job you like without a college degree, but you do have a plan to do it with a college degree, since it’s very important to get a job you like. Although, given that college is a huge investment, maybe you should have made that plan, or be making it.
If you aren’t looking forward to spending 4 more years in school a lot, and you could get a reasonable job without going to college, I think it would be crazy to go to college.
I don’t think most people are likely to be confused about which of these groups they are in. If Saul is confused I apologize but I think he must be a rare case.
The other arguments Saul made in his opening statement about why you might want to go to college seem very weak to me:
It’s a strong Chesterton’s fence.
This is an argument for why a fully generic high school student who knows nothing should go to college. It’s not an argument for why it’s good to get a college degree.
Defaults are for what a person with no information should do without thinking. Everyone at 16 has a huge amount of information about themselves, their dreams, their abilities, how they relate to school, how they relate to others, what the contemporaneous world is like. The default is not responsive to any of that. It’s completely inappropriate to be applying some super-general policy about norms and conformity when considering some giant extremely specific high-stakes offer that is only about your own life. This is what I disagree with the most in this dialogue.
General upkeeping of norms/institutions is good.
No it’s not. If it’s not in someone’s self-interest to get a college degree, there’s no way it’s in the social interest for there to be a norm of everyone getting college degrees.
Some people may be totally unproductive and/or be a drain on society (e.g. crime) if they don’t go.
That’s a reason to not be a career criminal, not a reason to get a college degree.
By the way, it’s pretty unproductive to go to college for 4 years while someone else pays for your room, board, and entertainment.
I don’t believe there are a substantial number of people who are incapable of being productive after 12 years of high school, but then if you send them to college for 4 years, now they can be productive. That doesn’t make sense. The way you would train a very low-skill person to be productive is by training them on a specific job, not sending them to college.
I think your counter-point to the chesterton’s fence point is pretty good; however I think it’s genuinely hard for many teenagers to understand what the choice is that they’re making. I don’t think I had much idea.
I really like the option that someone (I think Saul) proposed where you go to college for one year, with a commitment to take a gap year for the second year, after which you actually know what you’re choosing between.