GUEST COLUMN: Is going to college still the best policy?

David Bramzon says mostDavid Bramzon says moststudents study liberal artsDavid Bramzon says moststudents study liberal artsbecause they have no idea whatDavid Bramzon says moststudents study liberal artsbecause they have no idea whatthey want to do with their lives. David Bramzon says moststudents study liberal artsbecause they have no idea whatthey want to do with their lives.Hang out at Houston Hall over lunch, or listen to the conversation on Locust Walk, and you'll probably hear most of the questions a number of times: "Law school." "What about you?" "Med school." "And you?" "Investment banking." "Do you have future plans?" "I don't know. Probably grad school, then I'll decide." And these questions are just as common at the other 2,992 colleges in America as they are at Penn. What's wrong with this indecision? It is good for young people to aspire to higher levels of education and personal financial reward. In fact, sometimes the best way to help others who are not as well off is to help yourself. But the dangerous trend here is that too many college-educated people are becoming doctors, lawyers and bankers. There is only so much room for people to enter these professions. Also, degrees these days are being handed out like cash in a liberal welfare state. People are typically entering the work force in their late 20s, rather than their early 20s. They are living off their parents or the government for longer and longer periods, and wasting young energetic years during which they could and should be more productive. I always thought the idea behind college was to decide what you want to do before you go. Once you have decided, you study it so that you can later do it professionally. Unfortunately, in this country, things don't generally work that way anymore. Students in the '90s are not going to college for the right reasons. Look at what college meant half a century ago, for example, and what it means now. Then, people who could afford college went in order to acquire expertise in a particular field for the purpose of gaining an edge. Most people knew what it was that they wanted from college before they went. Today, many more people can afford college. There is less of a necessity to get to work and start earning a living. So what happens? People no longer go to college for the edge it gives them in the working world, but in order to not fall behind. The thinking nowadays is "I'm going to college because, well, just because I have nothing better to do." High school seniors never stop to ask themselves "Why?" They just know that if they don't go they're in trouble. Thousands of kids go to college every year without a valid reason for going in their own minds. And the liberal arts college system enables them to do so. Let's look at what the true purpose this type of education is; that is how we will see its deficiency. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to teach students how to solve problems. By practicing different types of problems, students become better general problem-solvers. The purpose of a liberal arts education is not to provide a forum for kids to enjoy the "college experience." An experiment with two groups of people serves as a good example here. Group A was given nine problems of different types. Group B was also given nine problems, but these were of the same type. The 10th problem given to each group was identical and of another type. Needless to say, Group A faired considerably better on the 10th problem than did Group B. Why? In the nine problem trials, Group A learned how to solve problems better by facing a variety of them. This phenomenon explains why solving a calculus problem today will in fact be useful in five years. The more different types of challenges a student faces today, the better he is able to tackle a challenge -- any challenge -- in the future. This is the real reason to study the liberal arts. So, the liberal arts education is actually a better pure education. The problem is that few college-age students are mature enough to reap its benefits. The liberal arts college allows kids to come in without direction and leave without a skill. Is it the job of a college to motivate its students? Absolutely not. It is up the student to decide for himself what he should do with his life, and to decide accordingly what to study. But because students, especially Ivy League students, know they can always study liberal arts, many do not stop to think about what they want out of college. A common counter-argument is that 90 percent of learning in college occurs outside the classroom. People bark, "How can you deny the benefits of the 'college experience'?" Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the benefits of wasting a lot of time, playing a lot of Sega and waking up past noon every day. The only way I see most people becoming well-rounded in college is physically around the mid-section from having too many beers. Others believe that college is a necessary transition time students need to "find themselves" or to see where their interests lie. But this transition will occur for anyone who moves away from home for the first time. Too many kids currently go to college. Not only should fewer people go to college, but there should be fewer colleges in the United States to house these kids. In Europe, students are more successfully prepared for life and a lifetime job through earlier, more intensive vocational training. But here, as long as people are willing to pay someone else's hard-earned money to prolong their own childhood, there will always be a place for them.