>I find this assertion to be very surprising. In my experience college, unlike high school, the entire point was to get >students thinking for themselves, rather than accepting that there was a single correct answer. In my freshman year, and >in the freahman year of each of my three daughters, there was always a required class which included a "colloquium" or >"discussion" component. These classes were designed to break students of the habit of treating what was said, or read, as >'the answer' and to instead think critically about the facts being tossed about.

What is considered "thinking critically." How do you pass this class? Well, the nature of classes is that someone decides if you pass or not.

>Again, my experience differs. Were I or my kids to discover that the University they were attending felt that way I >would immediately withdraw into a more traditional institution of higher learning, which starts with the premise >"everything we know may be false, here are the tools we use to understand truth in the world around us."

This isn't actually a fact. Just your reaction. But it does not disprove anything. It is what you say you would do. And also, you seem to be exerting authority over your kids... I am being a bit pedantic, but you say if your kids discovered [...]then you would withdraw [...]

>Again, I would disagree. As an employer I value employees who think over those to simply follow orders. One of the >things I try to ascertain in interviewing folks is whether or they do think. Can they reason to their opinion on a >topic or do they hold it simply because someone else shared it with them? My experience in high school was that many >people held opinions because they were "cool" or "expected" rather than holding them because they believed in them. >It was one of the most depressing parts of that period of my life and I was so relieved when I got to college that >people weren't like that really.

You seem personally offended, if I am not mistaken. I meant that managers in giant corporations generally (not always) expect obedience from their subordinates. I know because I work at a big company. I have read stories and I see it being satirized all the time. Satire is funny because there is truth in it (even if it is just a hint of it).

>One of the interesting statistics is we passed 30% of the US having a college degree in early 2012 [1]. So if 70% of >the people in a group don't have college degrees, it is difficult to reason about whether or not 'society' would be >better off or not. You could ask the 30% of degree holders how they evaluate creating value in society, you could ask >the 70% the same question, and then you could ask which of those two groups has a better idea of what kinds of things >make the world a better place.
>But a different approach might give better answer. Ask those two groups this question, "How would you go about >figuring out if what you were doing was helping the world be a better place?"
>College prepares people to answer questions of that form, ones that require the student to not only come up with an >answer, but to construct a process for arriving at the answer that gives them confidence in the result. No pre-made >formula, no quick peek at Wikipedia, but basic reasoning from first principles.
>I know several people who have that skill and did not go to college, but pretty much everyone who graduated from >college had that skill tested many times and had to pass that test in order to graduate.

If 30% of the population had college degrees, then maybe that just means that 30% of the population is just better than the other 70% at passing standardized tests. Does it mean that they made more value in the world? To say that you need college to answer the question "what would make the world a better place" may have been true 30 years ago. But now you have the internet. You can see what is happening around the world. You can venture out and look for problems to solve.

Again, with the passing of tests. Someone decides.

I am not hating against all colleges. I think MIT is great, because they let students build stuff. I chose to go to a above average college (it's not ivy league, but it is more or less well-regarded. I am not trying to be stuck up. I did not even want to go to college. I forced myself. I was lazy and did not want to study SAT. But I definitely am a lot smarter than I was without, but I can't say what I would have turned out to be if I had not gone. I liked reading about business so I may have stumbled upon YCombinator earlier if I weren't so busy studying textbooks).

There is a difference between giving a verbal answer about how to change the world and actually implementing it. The latter is far, far more difficult. College teaches you how to say the right answer, how to think about what could be the right answer. To actually build the solution with your hands comes from internal motivation.