Students: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

So . . . as a university professor I have a first-hand view (or is it first-eye view?  My hand can't see!) of how students manage their post-secondary education.  And when a commentary comes along, like in the Globe and Mail this weekend, about the so-called universal right to higher education, or when a political leader proposes a plan to increase university enrolment as part of his platform, I take notice.  Because unlike many, I don't necessarily think that increasing the number of university students is necessarily a good thing.  And I don't think that post-secondary education is for everyone.

Now, before you get all up in arms about my denial of higher education to the economically disadvantaged and/or the stupid, let me make it clear that my stance is not one based on financials.  If anything, those with less money (who would benefit more from grants such as Ignatieff's) are in many cases better candidates for university than those who never expected not to go (as for the stupid, it's questionable who much they would get out of university anyway).  Why?  Because if the ability to go to university is seen as something that is earned, rather than something that one is entitled to, there is a greater motivation to make the most of it. 

And I know that there are studies that show that greater university attendance and completion within a country leads to greater economic and social development.  That's fine.  But if post-secondary education is seen more as a rite of passage than as an opportunity to learn and prepare for a career, how much benefit is truly derived?  I have known lots of university students (most of them, really) who work hard enough to get value from university.  But there is also a sizeable minority who are here because their parents/friends/parent's friends expected them to, not because they see it as a step on the way to a larger goal.

(By the way, in a previous post I had written about university as primarily being about preparation for a career and got a reader comment that university should be about a free exchange of ideas and general learning, and not about career preparation.  First, it can be about both.  Second, if you are independently wealthy, I fully agree; if not, you need to learn something useful and applicable in university.)

University is not for everyone.  You can actually set yourself back four years by attending, if you are going to graduate and then go into a job where your education is not an asset, or if you then go to a technical program to learn a trade.  It's kind of like home ownership, which is seen as something that everyone should aspire to.  If everyone owned (instead of rented) homes, the workforce would not be mobile enough to fill the changing needs of the job marketplace, and the economy would suffer.  It has been estimated that in a healthy economy about 50% of people should rent.  Likewise, having a population where everyone has university degrees leaves gaps in less glamourous jobs or those where higher education is not needed.

A final point about the Globe and Mail article referenced above (well, final after I point out that the lawsuit mentioned at the outset of the article is completely ridiculous): I hate the latter part of the article where the author mentions dropouts. Fine, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out and then went on to be wildly successful.  That is not evidence that dropping out equals success; in fact, dropping out leads to a lower likelihood of success.  Those high-profile examples don't change that. 

Yes, I know that I argued for both fewer university students and fewer dropouts in the same post.  But it makes sense to me, and I have three university degrees, so obviously I contribute a great deal to society.  Maybe my point would be more successful if I had dropped out.