University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

------------ Refutations ------------ "I will stand by my position by saying that yes, a degree in auto mechanics at university would be more theoretical than practical, hands on experience..." [My opponent is arguing that the auto mechanics curriculum at a university would not include hands on experience working with cars without providing evidence that shows that in universities hands on experience is not used to teach.] "...because in my opinion, university aren't for people who are interested in a trade, but for those interested in the social sciences or the humanities." [An opinion without evidence is only an unsubstantiated claim. As the Pro side of this debate my opponent has the burden of proof to show that universities are only for those interested in social sciences and humanities. Even if my opponent were to try and substantiate this claim here is proof that more than just these subjects of study are offered and widely respected at many universities: *Harvard University School of Business offers case based study [1] and their alumni work in a variety of trade based fields. [2] *Michigan Ross School of Business uses a combination of course work, class projects, and experimental learning to teach. [3] *Oxford University offers courses in a much wider variety than those of the social sciences and humanities, including those involving a trade. [4] From my interpretation of my opponent's statements he states that universities do not offer courses that teach trade fields which I have dis-proven.] ~~~ "I should have been more specific. Depending on the discipline in which one is interested in gaining a degree, university is an invaluable resource. (Ie: Law, Medicine, Business, etc) It depends upon the field, as to whether one should attend college or university." [So now it is practical in situations such as obtaining a law or medical degree, but not in other fields. I again say that the fields offered by an institute of higher education do not depend on what title the founders of that institution gave it and my opponent has yet to refute that claim and provide evidence to support his position.] ~~~ "What I mean by this is that while it gives the student short term satisfaction, it doesn't provide long term satisfaction." [I would hardly say that passing tests only provides short term satisfaction as in many college courses tests make up a majority of the grade. Therefore passing tests would correlate to passing courses, which correlates to earning degrees. Earning a college degree is something that usually provides satisfaction for an individual.] ~~~ "...when one is a teenager, one isn't able to fully appreciate the knowledge being professed due to other seemingly more important priorities." [This statement is a generalization. Simply because a statement applies to a part does not mean that it also applies to the whole. My opponent needs evidence to support this claim or it is an empty one. Appreciation of information is not a requirement to gain satisfaction from it and whether or not someone appreciates information does not affect its overall quality and usefulness.] ~~~ "In closing, the difference between these types of institutions are that of content..." [My opponent has done nothing to refute the claim that the content of an institute of higher education has nothing to do with that institutes's name. My original contention stands.] ***** I look forward to your responses. Sources: [1] http://www.hbs.edu... [2] http://www.hbs.edu... [3] http://www.bus.umich.edu... [4] http://www.ox.ac.uk...