On Sat, 06 May 2017 20:47:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2017 07:37:23 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

p.s. Here's a pithy analysis I enjoyed greatly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8utmmWoBSBY

The problem is why people go to college. Conventional wisdom suggests
that it's to obtain a diploma, which is considered a guarantee of
success in future employment. This is totally wrong. College was
original where the upper classes sent their sons to receive
instruction in how to act like a proper gentlemen and member of the
upper class. That meant a classical education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_classical_studies
which included proficiency in ancient Greek and Latin. There were
also classes in history, from the perspective of the elite. Etiquette,
propriety, dueling, dance, proper dress, etc were taught so that they
would know how to act at social events. Overall, such an education
worked well for the intended purpose.

Things started to go astray when members of the GUM (great unwashed
masses) noticed that wealthy children were going to college. They
logically deduced that if they also went to college, they too would
become wealthy. Interchanging cause and effect is a problem among the
GUM.

So, they attended college, paid dearly for the privilege, and were
predictably disappointed with the expected wealth did not magically
materialize upon graduation. Not wishing to admit that they had
screwed up and did not achieve their expected goals, they perpetuated
the myth to other members of the GUM, who promptly repeated the
original logic error. The mistake would have been easily discovered
were it not for the substantial number of sons and daughters of the
wealthy, who continue to attend college.


Given that of the 56 signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence
some 29 had attended collage and 27 had not. So apparently starting a
rebellion doesn't necessarily require a collage education. George
Washington received the equivalent of an elementary school education
while General Howe entered the army when he was 17 by buying a
cornet's commission in the Duke of Cumberland's Dragoons in 1746 at
the age of 17, which would seem to preclude any higher education.

It is apparent that in the world of Real Politics collage is not
necessarily an advantage :-)

But I believe that you have missed a significant point in the great
Gentry - GUM debate. One attends a collage, just as one dresses for
dinner, not as a matter of education, but rather because that is
simply what a gentleman does. Just as one does not formally introduce
one's mistress to one's wife.