Live and Learn: Why We Have College:an Analysis of Louis Menand's New Yorker Article

Everything in the universe is fundamentally a small part in a larger system. This is including our educational institutions. One may say that in order to gain anything of value (such as a well-rounded education), you must first put something into that system before getting anything back. It is a 'you get what you give' type of situation. And you only get the education, back after you put in the effort, studying hard.

But, as Louis Menand pointed out in his article found in the New Yorker, "... how many [students] are actually learning anything?"

The article presents two different principals on the fundamental purpose of college.

The first principle (or theory as Menand refers to it) describes the main purpose of college as being able to define a 'universal' measuring tool, a tool used to weave out the smarter human beings from the majority. "In any group of people, it's easy to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking. But picking out the most intelligent person is difficult, because intelligence involves many attributes that can't be captured in a one-time assessment, like an I.Q. test. There is no intellectual equivalent of the hundred-yard dash. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement." [Paragraph 6]

College, in this case, acts as a mechanism to sort out the more intelligent members in society from the less intelligent ones. But why would we ever need to know who got the longer end of the stick and who got the shorter when it comes to brains? If we take an individual, at an early age, and determine how smart he or she is, we can then direct them into a career path that will maximize their talents and make our human resources as a whole much more efficient. In a way, college is used to 'dehumanize' people, looking at solely their GPA; you can judge that individual and rank them based on their represented 'intelligence level.' While this might not seem like the most pleasant of ideas, it can be a very useful one.

As humans, we are the most dominant species on the planet. We manipulate the natural course of nearly everything in our ability. With so many humans, it is hard to understand the need to 'maximize our human resources' as earlier stated. This gives the impression that we, as people, are just machines to be used, and when we sort out the more efficient ones, we can put them to 'better' use. In a way, by using college as a 'measuring tool', employers can determine which applicants will make a greater contribution to the work that needs to be done. When looking at different applicants, employers will be more likely to choose someone who attended a four-year college (receiving a good GPA) than someone who never went to college. College in this sense has just been used as a mechanism to determine who would work better in the orking world, ranking an individual's intelligence.

But how can we judge someone based on a number? We assume that someone with a 4 point would be a smarter individual than someone with a 2 point. This almost resembles an I.Q. test, but a test like that is not a good enough measuring tool when considered all on its own. A student GPA, however, can represent the student's ability to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across a range of subjects.

Menand's second theory reflects a different aspect of college, yet one still related. While the first theory describes college as a four-year intelligence test, the second is one more focused on what students are actually learning. "In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing." [Paragraph 9]

Society is filled with many different individuals, that all contribute somehow to this world. College acts as a universal way to get everyone on the same page. Nine thousand students may enter college with their different backgrounds and beliefs, all uneducated of the different views of the world; but they will all graduate four years later as a like-minded group. College is a way to bring together all of these different people, and teach them the ways of accepting others, and interacting with the world. It's like a practice run of the real world, just on a slightly smaller scheme.

In this aspect of college, it matters not what GPA you receive or graduate with, but more about the quality of your learning. It's about learning the general information and being able to apply it to the rest of the world and to the rest of your life.

And what makes the purposes of college even more apparent is when you look at the amount of students who attend some type of post-secondary institution, whether it be a community college, a four-year university, or even a trade-school.

Statistics present in Menand's article show that the amount of students attending school has increased crucially from amounts in the past. In 1950, there were about 1.14 million students in public colleges and universities and about the same number in private ones. According to the article, today, public colleges enroll almost fifteen million students, private colleges fewer than six million. Not only are there more students in college now than in the past, but there are more in America than other countries. Six percent of the American population is currently enrolled in college or graduate school. In Great Britain and France, the figure is about three percent.

The main point of the article covers