Higher education, Waste or Wonderful? Should something be done differently for higher education? This question is rather important, seeing as how it will affect far more people than can be counted. Higher education has flaws in it right now, we would all agree with that. So what should be done to improve college? Two people have stated their own opinions on the topic: Charles Murray and David Leonhardt. These two people, as well as myself, all have opinions on what would be the best way to address this problem, but our opinions differ greatly. College is a works fairly well right now, but it could be improved with a few changes.
Murray has written an article called, “For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time” about his idea of what should be done with the higher education system. Murray declares several things that are wrong with college; notably he makes it seem as though the current system is not only poor, but also immoral. Continuing this, he states that the education that a person would get in college will likely not even be needed once a person has graduated. He does admit, however, that having a college degree will give you much better odds of having a well-paying job. Having noted that college is inefficient, Murray presents his solution: to have some form of a test that potential employees would take to ensure that the individual be competent in the job. He notes that this would solve a lot of problems (Murray).
Fortunately Murray does not just leave his opinion as just an opinion; he goes on to support it. Murray argues that his plan would allow for people to use far less of their lives in a learning environment. This would generally be a good thing, seeing as how many people dislike having to go to college for more schooling after high school. Another thing he notes it that the amount of money that is currently needed to get through college is far more than most people want to pay; his plan would do away with costly tuitions and other costs associated with college (Murray). Since everyone dislikes paying a large sum of money to simply attend college, it is hard to argue that doing away with tuitions would be unpopular for anyone.
Murray goes on by claiming that his plan would help solve another problem with college, specifically that people often have to move into a different form of housing that, in addition to costing more money, is not desirable to live in. I myself rather dislike this, as I have recently moved out of the house of my parents and I am now forced pay rent and other expenses on my own. Murray generally portrays college housing as undesirable, but I, looking back on the last few weeks, think that it has been a great step to truly being an adult. Murray’s plan would eliminate the need for these less than popular practices by allowing people to study for their tests anywhere, rather than forcing them to commute to universities in order to learn (Murray). For non-traditional students, it would have very little down side. However for traditional students, the system would likely cause just as many problems as it would fix, seeing as how many people would then have little reason to leave home.
Continuing this, Murray also makes mention of the fact that his plan would benefit people who would otherwise not go to college, whether for financial reasons or simply because they do not want to. This is hard to argue with; it is clear that people who currently do not and will not have a degree will benefit from a system like the one Murray has proposed, but the people who have already spent years of their lives acquiring a degree will likely feel cheated. In addition to all this, Murray claims that this plan would not be hard to implement from our current state, as all we would have to do is start requiring tests instead of just degrees (Murray). This is, however, not really proven by anything; it could cause massive upheaval to the education system and may cause far more problems than