Going to college has become the norm, but it’s time we stop and ask: is this really the best way to maximize our peak learning years? Especially in an age where artificial intelligence is redefining how we interact with information, we have to reconsider if our current system of learning, is really keeping up. The numbers already tell a troubling story. Only 33% of students believe college is worth the cost, with 25% rating the value of their degree as “bad” or “very bad.” And it hasn’t been working for a while. Sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, in their book "Academically Adrift," found that nearly half of college students showed no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing after two years of study.
Over a third showed no gains even after four years. If we truly want to leverage the most curious and malleable years of our lives, we need to rethink the system: revive hands-on learning, reimagine how grades shape motivation, and stop pretending that classroom theory alone prepares anyone for the real world.
For decades, students have found ways to game the system — from copying homework to paying for essays to be written that blur the line between asking for help and cheating. Why? Because the system doesn’t reward proficiency; it rewards performance. It’s not that students don’t want to learn — it’s that learning often takes a backseat to what’s measurable: the grade. So when new tools come along that make getting the grade easier, students take them.
At Penn, and across most top universities, AI isn't just a tool, it’s a lifeline. ChatGPT writes our essays, codes our assignments, and helps us survive classes that no one actually wants to learn from. And this isn't surprising. The system doesn’t reward effort; it rewards efficiency. Students aren’t optimizing for mastery: they’re optimizing efficiency for the best grade.
AI didn’t break education. Grades did.
According to self-determination theory, students thrive when they’re intrinsically motivated, but grades are an extrinsic reward that undermines curiosity.
So what happens when students are no longer motivated to learn and just want to pass? They lean on AI. And the scary part? It works.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting we get rid of college. But we should rethink how it works. One place to start is by looking at apprenticeship-based learning models that emphasize hands-on, real-world experience. For centuries, people learned by doing: Shadowing professionals, applying theory in practice, and slowly mastering a craft through repetition and mentorship. What this could look like today isn't complicated: co-ops, apprenticeships, and year-long internships. Structured programs that let students alternate between academic learning and actual work in their chosen fields.
Why not bring in year-long internships? Why is it that hundreds of ambitious students can only get real-world experience in their summers? Take an aspiring doctor, for example. They come into college knowing what they want, but instead spend four years juggling random degree requirements instead of focusing on their core interest. Sure, I get the idea — students should explore beyond their major to become more well-rounded. And yes, sometimes this helps people discover new passions or rule out paths they don’t enjoy. In other cases, the goal isn’t to become well-rounded at all, but to stretch how you see your field by making connections to completely different disciplines, like how a pre-med might gain a new lens on healthcare through anthropology or philosophy. That’s valid, in theory.
But in practice, that’s not how most of these classes are experienced. They’re often disconnected, hard to care about, and designed with little consideration for students outside the major.
Most students don’t take those required classes seriously. They’re just checking a box. Intrinsic motivation (learning because you're genuinely interested) is far more effective than extrinsic motivation like grades or requirements. Forcing students to sit through classes they’re not invested in doesn’t foster curiosity or mastery; it just drains it.
We don’t have to reinvent better education systems: they already exist. In many European countries, students go directly from high school into medical school. There’s no four-year detour packed with distribution requirements or vague prerequisites. Instead, students enter their chosen path early and build deep, specialized knowledge from the start. These systems don’t just save time; they deliver results. Countries like France, Germany, and the Netherlands have better health outcomes, more affordable healthcare, and fully trained doctors entering the field years earlier than their United States counterparts. On top of that, medical school is often publicly funded in those countries.
What makes this model especially powerful is the age at which students enter it. Neuroscience research shows that brain plasticity (the brain's ability to learn and adapt) is at its peak during adolescence and early adulthood. These are the years students should be building skills, experimenting in real settings, and learning through doing. But instead, the U.S. system wastes that potential on hoop-jumping, over-scheduling, and GPA-chasing.
Even at Penn, we can see the limits of a traditional model. While 95% of Penn graduates report being employed or in grad school within six months of graduation, the majority have only a few months of real-world experience gained through summer internships. In contrast, just a few blocks away at Drexel University, many students complete up to 18 months of full-time, paid work through formal co-ops before earning their degrees, and nearly half receive full-time offers from their co-op employers.
The results speak for themselves: Drexel graduates are not only placed at similar rates but enter the workforce with stronger experience, professional networks, and a much clearer sense of career direction than others who didn’t have formal work experience.
At the end of the day, many of us came to Penn for the things Drexel can't offer: the global name recognition, the alumni network, and the prestige. In fairness, Penn’s intense pre-professional culture does prepare students to navigate the real world quickly: networking aggressively, tailoring resumes, securing internships early.
But learning how to get a job isn’t the same as learning how to master a field. A system that pushes students to optimize for short-term wins often does so at the expense of deeper, sustained intellectual growth.
Prestige without progress is just a dead end. A Penn education shouldn't just open doors because of a brand name; It should open them because students leave here better prepared, more experienced, and more confident in their abilities.
If anything, Penn has the resources and reputation to set the standard for what a 21st-century education should look like. We could be the place that proves academic excellence and real-world mastery don’t have to be separate paths. We just have to stop pretending that a few summer internships are enough. Otherwise, we’re just paying for a name, and wasting the years when we could have been building something real.
MAHEE PATEL is a College first year studying philosophy, politics, and economics from Iselin, NJ. Her email is mtpatel@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
