The Controversial Issue of the Value and Relevance of College Education in the Modern World
In the modern world, the value and the relevance of college education is a controversial issue. People hold varied views on this issue: some people are of the view that college education is the only mean to succeed in life and to achieve one's goals in life; some other people think that the value of college education lies in the fact that college education offers the young learners a conducive environment to grow and to be able to make mature decisions about themselves later in life.
There are other people, like Caroline Bird, whose article we are going to critique in this paper, who see college education as a sheer waste of time and money for the majority of people. This paper focuses on Bird's article "College is a Waste of Time and Money", the paper analyses and critiques the arguments that Bird offers in support of her view that college education is a sheer waste of time and money for the majority of people. The paper concludes with a recommendation on what need to be done so as to improve college education.
The main theses of Bird in her critical view of college education is that college education is not good for many young people, and many young people go to college not because they want to learn or they see any value in college education, but, they go to school for some other reasons. Bird claims that many young people go to college because of reasons that are not relevant to the actual meaning of education.
Order custom essay The Controversial Issue of the Value and Relevance of College Education in the Modern World with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
For instance, Bird claims that many young people go to college simply because going to college has become the conventional thing to do after completing high school; Bird also claims that some other young people go to college because they do not want to work, so that they can get the financial support of their parents or taxpayers. Caroline Bird goes on to argue that since many students do not go to school willingly and they do not see any sense of college education, many of college students are sad and sullen throughout their college lives; the students feel unwanted and they feel that they have been damped in college to stay there temporarily because the world had no place for them. Consequently, Bird concludes that college education is a sheer waste of time and many.
A critical review of Bird's argument on this issue, however, reveals some logical fallacies that Bird committed in supporting her theses. Before we expose the two logical fallacies in Bird's argument in support of her theses, let us explain the main strength of Bird's argument. The main strength of Bird's argument lies in the fact Bird provides statistics on the number of students who have been interviewed on whether or not they enjoy and like college education. Bird argues that statistics have shown that more than 20% of college students do not like college education. Bird, therefore, bases her claims on these statistics.
The second strength of Bird's argument lies in the fact that Bird claims that college education may not have as high financial returns as many people think; Bird is right in her claim that financially, in the modern world, in some instances investing in college may be the dampest form of investment. Despite these strengths, however, Bird committed two logical fallacies in support of her theses.
One of the logical fallacies that Bird committed in her argument is the fallacy called Hasty generalization. Although Bird gave the percentage of the students who said that they are not happy to be in college, based on the scurvies that that have been conducted on the topic, the data obtained from the survey, however, are too little to make a generalization that more than 20% college students are not happy to be in college; Logically such a generalization cannot be justified unless all the college students are interviewed on whether or not they are happy to be in college. Bird, therefore, committed the fallacy of hasty generalization.
The logical fallacy that Bird committed in her argument is the fallacy called Post Hoc (Confusing Chronology with Causality). Bird argues that simply because many students are not happy to be in college, the college is not the best place for them. In this argument, Bird failed to realize the fact that there are many reasons that may make students to be unhappy in college, yet college might be the best place for them. For instance, psychological and social problems may make one to be unhappy in college, and college may be the right place for the person. In this line of reasoning, therefore, Bird concluded that because students seem unhappy or confess to be unhappy in college, the college may not be right place for the student. This kind of fallacy is called Post Hoc fallacy.
In conclusion, although Bird offers a powerful argument in support of her theses, Bird's argument, however, is fallacious. Instead of dismissing college education as a waste of time and money for the majority of people, Bird should have made recommendations on what needs to be done to make college education to the majority of students. In my view, the best measure that can be taken to make college education more beneficial to students is to ensure that students study what they love in colleges; also, the universities and colleges should ensure that they are teaching courses that are relevant to the job market.
Cite this Page
The Controversial Issue of the Value and Relevance of College Education in the Modern World. (2023, Apr 20). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/the-controversial-issue-of-the-value-and-relevance-of-college-education-in-the-modern-world/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
