There is some cognitive dissonance I seem to have when reading this material: Since when does education connect directly with success in the food chain (or guaranteed success in anything)? While I have always believed people are who they are, and those who pursue an education, particularly graduate programs have a different approach to life apart from "job, transport home, sleep," for instance. They have their own reasons for going to college and so forth.
When I was a student, again for example, no one told me or anyone I know there were any guarantees in the modern world about winning in life through learning in the post - secondary establishment. Most of the people I went to school with at college, even with advanced degrees are educated workers; they are not super - high - earners or educated intellectuals. This is the case with most educational institutions, even the very good ones, I do believe.
There's no fallacy in the role of post - secondary educational schemes as we know them, no fraud, and thus is presented one of the major problems you bring up in your writing - no guarantees invites any excuse to politicize academic achievement and any and all lack of motivation to achieve intellectually, or to in fact learn what in some pursuits is vital material at the exclusion of 'diversifying' a learning experience at college and thereafter. What's the point: As far as I know, college at this time is really for most people not an experience of intellectualism and higher learning. It is apparently when people find out if they have enough of "what it takes," or whether they have "got it," nowadays, regardless of what is gained on an intellectual level. This is (subject to interpretation) an unfortunate circumstance, but has been prevalent for me as a trait in academic institutions since schools have openly been run as very large organisations and the people in them as simple elements thereof, and the related role of administration in student / faculty life has had an impact upon people's conduct that is in many cases detrimental to intellectual pursuits, too.
The above, among other issues, has been publicly examined by people like William Bennett [sic] who ran the federal education department for some time and who attempted to first make the public more aware of these difficulties and then try to effectuate some change in the role of education in our society. His efforts by some were viewed as too difficult in their scope and scale and evaluated as even based upon backward ideas. People like me do believe that the value of higher education, especially in the arts and sciences and related academic and professional achievements, has been adulterated by increasing dependence upon technology and computers (this is probably subject to interpretation as well.) There are entire businesses devoted to selling methods and practices to reward incapable people due to non - academic considerations and other "success" factors. Why is this, it's just that the educational practices de jure sometimes call for this. You hit a real nerve here, and anything subjectively submitted here gives reasons for serious analysis of systemic failures in students' and later professionals' inability to learn or to demonstrate their higher learning. Please pardon typographical errors here.
