this was a decent site untill a brit [drunkard] named miunit kept calling me names and i labeled him a drunken grit because i think europeans suck
Posted by ÐiamonÐ on Apr 8th, 2011
Education is highly valued in almost every infrastructure all across the globe. Parents argue that by taking courses, doing homework and school-related projects, and being tested on those topics with short second-party access to informative sources, one can become smarter at said subject. Parents often argue that the one way to become generally smarter is by taking higher education - that outside of high school, such as university.
Do these higher educational institutions truly provide an outlet for smarter people? Do they actually help us become more knowledgeable about the outside world? Are we, as an inherent product upon finishing such establishment, apt to greater intelligence than that of peoples who did not attend universities?
As controversial as it sounds, I maintain the answer: no. We do not become smarter nor should we think for a second that we do. To think that we instantly become smarter by attending classes and acing tests is ignorant if not dangerous, since we close ourselves to the possibility that we may not know enough. As one grows of age, the opportunity to gain experiences flourishes, but does one seriously think that everyone grasps for that opportunity of wisdom? Can you not name some 50-60 year old politicians in your country who have remarkably immature stances when it comes to the use of rhetoric and informal logical fallacies? Could you point towards child prodigies who have far exceeded those in their age group?
Age does not access your actual aptitude, but more-so only gives the chance to gain knowledge and have empirically-based experiences. In the same light, university does not offer it's subjects intelligence, but the opportunity to gain such intelligence. For example, various student organized groups permit students to congregate and discuss on a social level, applying what they knew in high school, various low-paying jobs, etc. into community service or competitive fronts such as Mock Trial or Model U.N. Do most people actually take the jump and attend these events? Do many students find curiosity in attending colloquies, challenging their questioning ability and granting inspiration to potential future contenders of the field, or enter a library with nearly infinite resources and information hubs to gain an understanding on said subject matter?
The answer, yet again, is no.
I am deeply bothered by how one suspects a college graduate to be smart or worldly given their bachelor's degree. True, only 1/3 of all people in my country are within the grasp of this type of education, but this 1/3 is not better nor more intelligent than the people who did not enter these facilities. It what the student or individual does outside of the book work or class - the individual must have curiosity and strive for greater understanding completely self-willingly. One could argue that entering a higher education is the largest waste of money, given that a highly patient and focused individual could open books on topic matter in a public library and know more than the person attending class half-awake, who hastily read the classes' readings 5 minutes before class. True, this is an exaggeration: but it is clear that if one sought for knowledge and actively pursued it, it becomes a second nature to them. They find a closer proximity to intelligence given that they actively want it, and this is what makes one intelligent. The chance for experience is not equivalent to experience itself, and legislatures should assess this discrepancy when providing it's citizens with laws restricting access to resources on the basis of age or educational background - since these things prove little.