It is the general belief that in order to get a good job in today’s economy; one must obtain a college degree, if not two. Dale Stephens, in his interview, “The Case Against College,” questions this system. He argues that obtaining a degree through college is killing students creativity, beginning with the lower level education (kindergarten through twelfth grade). More specifically Stephens is taking an “uncollege” approach, claiming that students should learn through experiences. In his opening statement, Stephens begins, “Creativity is innate – the problem is that school kills creativity..” He is suggesting that a new system must be developed to help tackle this rising issue. Although Stephens emphasizes the necessity for change, it must be clear that this idea of “uncollege” is not for everyone.
In my opinion, Stephens presents valid arguments in his overall discussion, although I have generated my own thoughts. Stephens discusses the fact that college kills creativity and that students should look into the possibility of not attending college. Although I have found a loss of creativity due to schooling, I believe that it is imperative that students obtain a degree to have a sustainable lifestyle. The economy today is striving for individuals with degrees, and as an additive, creativity. Finally, I do believe that change needs to occur in the educational system, but the steps Stephens suggests are not the right ones (to not attend college). Attending college is an experience within itself that students need to experience, and I truly believe that reforms can be made in other areas where students still obtain college degrees. Therefore I conclude that college has become a necessity in today’s culture, but that there is also a loss of creativity along the way; so as a result, reforms need to be made.
The overlying theme that Stephens addresses is school killing creativity. He focuses on the fact that college kills creativity more so than any other grade level; this I disagree with. He refers to a study that George Land and Beth Jarman discuss in their 1998 book, “Breakpoint and Beyond.” This study had kindergartners take divergent thinking tests to analyze one’s propensity for creativity, and then take them again after five years of ‘formal education.’ The results claim that ninety-eight percent of kindergarteners tested at the genius level and after five years of schooling only fifty percent tested at that same level. Stephens believes that this is argument enough to prove that school kills creativity and some should pursue an “uncollege” approach to make sure that their creativity stays intact. However, I believe that it is not just the material that is causing students to lose their creativity through loss of interest, but also the way students are being taught. Due to standardized testing, students are being “taught for the test,” meaning that students are only learning the necessary information to pass an exam. This has diminished the educational system, limiting children the amount of knowledge they could possess. In this following video clip, the sitcom, “The Simpsons,” addresses the idea of standardized testing in a comical way.
They present the idea that standardized testing and the teaching system enforced now only allows students to follow one path in their life. Students believe that due to the results they receive that they are only capable of certain levels in the economy, regarding occupations. One stark contrast between the idea that standardized testing helps students and between actually creativity and knowledge level is shown in the video clip through the job Lisa Simpson is stated to obtain. As some viewers of the show may know, Lisa is considered genius level in the school that she attends, but the aptitude test claims that she will only be a homemaker when she grows up. This idea is instilled in many individuals minds today. One way to expand the way of teaching and to encourage creativity is by having students involved in more projects. Students currently participate in basic note taking, studying and exam preparatory skills which do not allow for creativity to occur. As you will find in the following Katie Couric clip, since standardized testing is one of the foremost issues, schools have had to cut funding to music and art classes which help promote creativity.
Although I do agree that the invention of Facebook did not occur (literally) in the classroom setting, it did involve an educational background. Dale Stephens discusses the idea that new inventions in technology, such as Facebook, did not occur in the classroom, but rather through experimenting outside when he brings up the topic of “STEM” subjects, claiming that they are not beneficial to a student’s education. He states, “While STEM subjects have been deemed critically important to economic development, I’m not convinced that what one studies in school has anything to do with what one does after school.” For any thought process to occur one must have the basic understanding of education. How would Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook without understanding how to use a computer, nevertheless how to write computer programs. This required some educational background; therefore I argue that some education is necessary to foster our creativity and that one should attend college (regardless of what critics may say, such as Stephens). College is a fundamental basis to surviving in the world today; without a degree one will not obtain a substantial job, without a substantial job one will not live within societal norms of a good lifestyle, without a good lifestyle one will be unhappy. Yes, I agree that college does have some strains such as financial issues, debt being a major example, but in the end it pays off in terms of living. Society has required individuals to obtain a degree in order to live, unlike in the past where one could survive without a college degree. Stephens claims that one does not need a degree, but take a look at this graph and decide for yourself.
Another reform that I would choose to make in the educational system, would be the classes students take. Stephens believes that not attending school is the answer to making sure one’s creativity is intact, and that the world will soon come to a day when degrees are valued as much as they are now. He states in his interview, “Although requiring people to get advanced degrees currently works, over the long term we face the potential for a degree-saturated market.” I agree with Stephens that are society will soon be degree-saturated due to the desire for education and the requirements for jobs. Although on the contrary, it is the competitive nature of the economy for people to acquire education. Stephens seems to believe that our society is a cycle; that once we become degree-saturated we will return back to primitive times and minimal degrees are required. This belief is entirely incorrect. Once we become degree-saturated, individuals will begin to look to earn second or even third degrees (beginning to arise today). There is nothing wrong with this idea but the fact that some college does take away our creativity and timing to accomplish all of these tasks. Therefore I find that college should minimize the amount of general education classes students are required to take. For a first year college undergraduate, the majority of their schedule is composed of general education classes that should be addressed in high school. Even some of these classes should be eliminated from parts of the system all together. I find that classes such as history should only be necessary until tenth grade, and English should conclude when students graduate from high school. Notice on standardized tests that they mainly focus on math and English related topics; then why are we learning the history of the world up through college? I do understand that history is a fundamental basis for society but learning bout Native Americans for three years in a row in middle school is too much. Although I may be bias, seeing as I graduated from a highly rated high school, Irondequoit High School, those students who need the extra attention in specific areas can achieve that through personalized classes. Included in my class options during high school were business classes. I found that these classes should be instilled within every high school education and should be considered a core field of study (just like STEM subjects are now). More specifically the program DECA should be woven throughout everyone’s lives because it prepares students for the future. DECA, standing for distributive Education Clubs of America, tests high school and college students on their knowledge of basic business skills. Through a series of conferences, students take tests and are placed in role play scenarios asking them to prove their knowledge on a specific topic. If students qualify at the regional level they move on to the state conference and from there the national conference, where over 15,000 students compete from across the world. Not only does DECA test students on their business knowledge, but it also involves students in community service projects and introduces them to the professional attire (through their strict dress code at conferences) necessary for even a job interview. Watch the video below to learn more about DECA.
From experience at the national level I can testify to the topics discussed in the above video, DECA gives students a chance to experience different career choices and network with individuals from across the globe. The main argument that Dale Stephens brings up is that schools kill creativity and I believe that DECA is the answer to helping prevent this issue. It brings out the creativity in students, but in an applicable way, yet also teaches them the necessary life skills.
However, Dale Stephens also emphasizes in his website on “uncollege” that this system is not for everyone. He addresses this idea when he claims that home-schooled children are more creative and fare higher on standardized testing than those children in the public school system. More specifically, Stephens states, “Interestingly, home-schoolers — students who engage in full-time informal learning — outperform traditional students across the spectrum.” I agree with Stephens that informal learning has its benefits because it puts students in a situation where they are more capable to learn from experience. One example of this idea of home-schooling and experience can be shown through the Duggar Family, a popular show on TLC. The Duggar children are home-schooled yet the family participates in many community service activities, vacations, and takes advantage of tutoring services that allow for their informal learning to foster creativity. In support of Stephens claim that “uncollege” is for some individuals, he is correct in stating that school kills creativity. I find that if schools take advantage of the opportunities present in today’s world (like the Duggar’s do), then formal learning will take on a partial informal curriculum that will help benefit students instead of limit them.
In conclusion, Dale Stephens has valid arguments in his interview, “The Case Against College.” He believes that school is killing students creativity and that something needs to be done about it. Although Stephen’s answer to this problem is an “uncollege” approach (that college is not for everyone); this is where I disagree. It seems to me that at nineteen, Stephens does not have enough knowledge or experience to be claiming that people should not attend college. Although I am no older I find that students should still attend college, reforms just need to be made within the educational system. Colleges and high schools should allow their students to choose their classes, business classes should be mandatory at high schools, standardized testing should not have as much importance as it does now, and informal learning should be implemented. If these reforms are taken into consideration I believe that creativity will no longer be limited and our society as a whole will benefit.
