[ One of the greatest debates of our time is the topic of college education: specifically, who should go to college and how important it is to attend. O’Halloran (2018) states, “Given the crises that public higher education is currently facing, we are in desperate need of creative solutions” (p. 33). Some contend that too many people are going to college, while others believe not enough are going to college. Nemko (n.d.) reports that “According to the U.S. Department of Education, if you graduated in the bottom 40 percent of your high school class and went to college, 76 of 100 won’t earn a diploma, even if given 8 1/2 years” (para. 2). “Yet,” he reminds us, “colleges admit and take the money from hundreds of thousands of such students each year!” Murray (2015/2008) reports that “about a third of all those who entered college hoping for a B.A. will leave without one.” According to Hrabowski (2015), “fewer than 10 percent of Americans from the lowest income quartile have earned a college degree by age 24, compared to 80 percent of those in the top quartile” (p.261). The subject is an important one, and one about which many have something to say, and in this essay, I will present the perspectives of several experts and commentators in the field.

Bluedorn and Bluedorn (2003) point out that “College is not the classical way to learn a livelihood” (p. 443). They go on to inform us that college used to be attended only by a small minority of the population. Most were taught a trade by their father or through an apprenticeship, or, if the training involved learning from books, they were taught by a private tutor. Murray (2015/2008) likewise points out that before the mid-20th century, the B.A. was not considered the standard of respectability and success as it is today. Furthermore, according to Bluedorn and Bluedorn, “college today is what high school was a century ago—or less, in some ways.” In other words, a person than with a high school education has as much or more of an education as a person today with a college education. Bluedorn and Bluedorn believe that an important purpose of K-12 schooling should be to teach children how to teach themselves, all throughout their lives. Anything missed in primary and secondary education can be learned independently later on—a liberal arts education is not necessary. Murray (2015/2008) expresses a similar idea when he argues for a body of core knowledge to be taught to all American youth in elementary and middle school, rendering a liberal arts education in college unnecessary.

Saying “too many people are going to college” is not the same as saying that the average student does not need to know about history, science, and great works of art, music, and literature. They do need to know—and to know more than they are currently learning. So let’s teach it to them, but let’s not wait for college to do it. Liberal education in college means taking on the tough stuff. (p. 237)

Murray argues that college-level liberal arts material is so academically rigorous that only those in the top ten percent of academic ability are able to both engage and enjoy it. Those below the 90th percentile, roughly, may be able to take on the stuff of a liberal arts college degree, but probably won’t enjoy it.

However, is it more economically beneficial to attend college or not attend college? While the conventional wisdom of our day has it that those with bachelor’s degrees typically earn more than those without them, Murray makes the case that it is often better for an individual to pursue something they are very good at, outside of college, rather than pursue something they are mediocre at, in college. He states, “The income for the top people in a wide variety of occupations that do not require a college degree is higher than the average income for many occupations that require a B.A.” (p. 247). Nemko (n.d.) comes down hard on society’s demand that everyone attend college, pointing out flaws in the oft-cited statistic that those people with B.A. earn more than their non-B.A.-holding peers. To begin with, he contends that it is a slanted statistic, since those who attend college are “brighter, more motivated, and have better family connections” (para. 4) in the first place—which were those being at least some of the factors that lead to them attending college—so they probably would have earned more anyway. In addition, while the supply of college graduates is increasing, the demand for them is decreasing. Furthermore, the statistic does not even cover the concern of those who attend college yet fail to graduate. Nemko states,