Charles Murray Are Too Many People Going To College Analysis

Charles Murray: Are Too Many People Going to College?
When determining which applicant to hire, an employer that follows the common trend among society will analyze the difference in education levels. A degree seems to simply reach the consideration point of an employer, and from that baseline potential employees are judged based on their level of education, where they gained their education, and how successful they appear to be in their education. In Are Too Many People Going to College, Charles Murray scoffs at this. According to Murray, employers care only about the degree and do not value what education actually does for the student. College education should not automatically grant a graduate more consideration over another applicant

that did not attend college. The applicant that did not attend college may instead spend his time in apprenticeships—learning and expanding his abilities through practical experience. Meanwhile, the college graduate wastes years and money on education that does not benefit his career to reach what has become the benchmark for American employment—a B.A.

“Employers value the B.A. because it is a no-cost (for them) screening device for academic ability and perseverance” (233). Although “academic ability and perseverance” at first glance seems to bring justice to the B.A. and its heavy dependence, to glean accurate measurements of these qualities from a college degree is not possible. In sum, the previous example of two applicants shows that a product of factory-like college does not represent more value, experience, or ability. “Factory-like” surely fits American college education.
Education simply does not work for everyone. Unique qualities exist in every person and nobody can be expected to think, act, learn, and develop the same as another; in fact, bringing new qualities to the table is exactly what makes a person more valuable. Why, then, does mass-producing graduates seem to be the aim of current American education? To put students under the same curriculum does not accurately determine who is better than another—many factors compile this analysis. For one, Murray explains that people enjoy what they do well, and in turn, they do well at what they enjoy.

“Getting a liberal education consists of dealing with complex intellectual material day after day, and dealing with complex intellectual material is what students in the top few percentiles are really good at, in the same way that other people are really good at cooking or making pottery” (227). In other words, people have different skillsets, and to compare individuals on the same level is faulty system. Writing papers may be a natural gift to a student studying electrical engineering; according to Murray, this student will find joy in writing, further motivating him to improve his writing. Although this ability will enable him to graduate with high grades, he does not compare with a second student that struggles with writing, but can navigate, create, and repair a circuit board like no other. The same concept applies—this gift with hands-on electrical engineering will cause joy and motivation; yet, the transcript of the first student will immediately display higher competence and skill when. A book-smart student often merely creates the image of being more valuable. Imagine a society in which education does not exist; nobody earns a piece of paper to certify them a scholar of a certain level and people learn and grow their abilities through collaboration with knowledgeable, experienced people. Assuming the workforce would remain exactly the same as it is now, what would be the determining factor for hiring applicants in this society? The value of individuals would be evaluated at their abilities, knowledge, strengths, weaknesses, and so on. This concept is the basis of Murray’s claim—education does not always equal more value.