It is believed in American society that a college degree is necessary to pursue a prestigious and well-paid career. More and more students are moving to higher education, leading to an increase in student and national debt. Rising debt in a fragile economy, horror stories of students drowning in debt, and failing schools all raise important questions. Is the price of entry worth it? Should everyone go to college? Does school kill or nourish creativity? Are traditional colleges better than non-traditional colleges? Why would I care? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay To understand how such problems arose, it would be best to learn about the origin of modern universities. The first colleges were created primarily for religious groups. They were used to educate and train ministers. Harvard was one of the first colleges founded in the colonies, but took a less traditional route by training lawyers, politicians, and farmers. The curriculum taught there included: Greek, Latin, geometry, ancient history, ethics and rhetoric. Students were taught to be philosophers rather than thinkers. Education was extremely different from what it is today. In the mid-20th century, the number of colleges increased significantly. More and more students began to attend until it became an almost mandatory choice. Due to the high expectations present in many career paths, most require some form of college degree, causing attendance rates to skyrocket. Small institutions became universities and began to move toward the educational system used in America today. Investing in education is a major reason for America's success and has played an important role in building a strong economy. The American belief that every individual deserves equal educational opportunity is a policy that works, but it is not perfect. Due to the ever-increasing number of students and the high expectations associated with college degrees, prices have continued to rise steadily. Until recently, when the price of tuition almost doubled, sparking concern and debate. The debate over higher education and its value is controversial, with many different voices and opinions. The most commonly used topics include: debt, tuition, price, traditional colleges, value to the individual, and “the college experience.” The value of higher education is a very popular debate due to the employment sector. The common idea is that to obtain a high-end career and be successful, a college degree is necessary. Although statistics have proven that college graduates often earn more than those without college degrees, this is not always the case. People, like Robert Wilson, encourage others to attend college, saying the debt is worth it. Others, like Mike Rose, recognize that college isn't necessary for everyone. He recognizes the street smarts that some people have that allows them to get by. Higher education issues must be considered by every student considering college. These topics are important to consider in order to make the wisest choice when considering obtaining a degree. In 2010,Andrew Hacker and Claudia Drefius began to initiate this debate. In their article “Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?” ,” they developed these questions through institutional studies and interviews with higher education leaders, policymakers, and students across the country. “Our conclusion: Colleges take on too many roles and do no good” (180). They believe schools are too spread out, have taken on too many roles, and are wasting money on student tuition and less important things. Hacker and Drefius are not arguing that higher education is useless, but that it needs reform. They believe that schools “have lost track of their fundamental mission of engaging the minds of young people” (180). The authors argue that too much money is flowing into these institutions and getting little of the important services they deserve. Sanford J. Ungar, president of Goucher College in Baltimore, discusses the importance of liberal arts colleges and the "misperceptions" that prevent people from attending them. His ideas place more emphasis on what a student gains as an individual; social skills and experience, on the financial problems of university studies. “Financial matters cannot be ignored, nor can certain eternal truths: Through immersion in the liberal arts, students learn not only how to earn a living, but also how to live a life rich in values ​​and character” (196 ). Ungar advocates for reform in how college and the liberal arts should be viewed. Sir Ken Robinson delves deeper into the topic of education in his discussion titled “Changing Education Paradigms.” It analyzes problems across the entire education system, not just higher education. He says the current educational process prevents students from focusing on their talents and individuality. He explains that our education system was designed in another era. There was a time when attending a higher education institution was a wonderful bonus and not a requirement for securing a stable job. According to Robinson, divergent thinking, or creative thinking, becomes less common as children progress through higher grades. Studies like this support the theory that standardized testing can harm a child's creative ability. Teaching a student one way to solve a problem and having them repeat and practice until it is the only way they know how to solve. The indication that school diminishes creativity is alarming for our future generations and Robinson is calling for change. For him, it is not just colleges that need reform, but the entire American education system. In “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” » by Kevin Carey? he describes institutions of higher education as “money-making machines” (216). He says there is still widespread fraud in the system, which persists even after reform by a previous generation accused of fraud. He says about 90 percent of the revenue generated comes from federal aid programs. This raises the question of why student tuition fees are so high. Despite this, he explains that for-profit businesses are not all bad. "But that doesn't mean that for-profit higher education is inherently bad. For-profit institutions exist largely to address the educational market failures left by traditional institutions, and they profit by serving the students that public and private establishmentsnon-profit too often ignore. " (219). For-profit organizations help fill educational gaps and repair old, dilapidated nonprofit colleges. Although they are a bit limited in terms of federal funding, they also seem to do good to communities Hacker, Drefius, Ungar, Carey, and Robinson all speak of reform as the primary requirement for improving higher education. Reforming schools to meet student needs, individualizing lessons, improving lessons, and. take on less trivial tasks to focus on more important ones. Carey's ideas focus more on the wasteful amount of taxes being spent on for-profit colleges and how that should dramatically reduce tuition costs. reform Their ideas on the main problem are quite similar, with each generally saying that schools are to blame for the situation. However, there are many different ideas on how these problems could be solved, or even alleviated. Another giant of the higher education debate is whether the problem lies more with the individual student and their decision to attend college. It's not uncommon for undergraduates with low-paying jobs and little money saved to take out more loans than they can pay. Not because they lack intelligence, but because they lack experience and believe they need a degree to escape poverty. Authors like Liz Addison, Charles Murray, and Mike Rose explore alternatives that could prove helpful in preventing people from falling prey to student loans. Liz Addison advocates for the convenience of community colleges. She counters the bad reputation of low-end colleges by praising their programs and low prices. Its philosophy is that cheap access to education allows students to get oriented and begin their path to earning a degree. As for the college “experience,” she claims it’s the same thing. "Just follow one of the 1,655 road signs and stick your head inside - yes, they let anyone in - and you'll discover the discoveries of a first independent film, a first independent thought, of independent first study This college experience remains as it should be” (212). two years old, college graduate and well-established author Mike Rose uses his mother as an example when writing about the need for higher education. His mother was a waitress who excelled at her job. people and to satisfy customers in order to earn a bigger tip Rose described what he considered Blue-Collar Brilliance He explains that although a degree is not necessary for low-end jobs, it does not mean. not that the worker is unintelligent. Many blue-collar jobs require workers with a flexible learning curve and a flair for divergent thinking. This is found in many companies around the world. Not all blue-collar workers are cashiers at McDonald's. Another example Rose used was that of his uncle Joe, who was in charge of a paint and body assembly line at a General Motors company. His uncle, by learning on the job, found many solutions that improved the work and made the employees' jobs easier. "Through further promotions, he not only solved problems, but also began to find problems atresolve: Joe initiated a paint sprayer nozzle redesign, eliminating costly and unhealthy overspray. And he found a way to reduce energy costs. on baking ovens without affecting the quality of the paint." (248). Both Rose's uncle and mother are prime examples that discredit the idea that intelligence and formal education go hand in hand They have both proven to possess a specific type of intelligence that not just anyone possesses. An intelligence that allows them to earn money at work and improve their performance at their jobs. It's found all over America today. It really puts a strain on the perception that people without degrees aren't smart. Student debt is the problem that introduced the whole gamut of flaws into the higher education system. There are often public stories of students saddled with debt and with no way to pay it off, unable to land a career with the degree they earned, leading to bankrupt lives that are completely ruined. is easily advertised and creates widespread fear of having to spend too much on college. But it also raises the question of how common situations like this arise. According to Robin Wilson, the big propaganda about students suffering their entire lives in debt is just that: propaganda. Wilson says about a third of graduates leave college with little or no debt to pay. Better yet, of the 65 percent who owe money, the average amount is about $20,000. If a graduate puts their degree to good use and gets a job because of it, there is a good chance that the money they owe can be easily repaid within a few years. However, Wilson explains that this doesn't mean student debt is no longer a problem. "But for a vocal minority of borrowers, student debt problems are very real. About 8 percent of undergraduates borrow at least double the national average" (257). The primary cause of incredibly high student debt is undergraduate students' choices about where they attend college. Some are willing to pay any price to attend the college of their dreams, which usually leads to bankruptcy. The bad reputation of student debt actually comes from a minority of borrowers, not the whole. According to Wilson, if an undergraduate student attends college for practical rather than sentimental reasons and uses their degree wisely, student debt will be very easy to manage. Through his research on the subject, Wilson has erased one of the most ominous issues present in almost every discussion of higher education. This does not mean, however, that university is for everyone. It seems that the answer to whether a degree is worth pursuing lies with each undergraduate student. Author Charles Murray pushes this extremely controversial debate even further away by asking, "Are too many people going to college?" He thinks there are several answers to this question. "Yes and no. More people should acquire the basics of liberal education. But for most students, the places to provide these basics are elementary school and college" (223). Murray believes that saying too many people go to college is not the same as saying people don't need to know core subjects. Actually, it is, but he thinks they should learn much earlier before college. College is supposed to be some kind of test.