All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 12, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:23
2909 Should You Go To College?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Question from a listener.
Marcus, what do you think about college today?
I have the opportunity to study economics, and do have at least one anarcho-capitalist economist as a professor, with whom I have already built up an acquaintanceship, but I do feel attracted to philosophy.
You once said that you don't think it would be a good idea to study philosophy at a university.
I'm already 30 years of age.
Should I rather try and get into the job market or continue studying?
Well, again...
No solutions.
There are only costs and benefits in this area.
This is not a moral question, but a question, I think, of practicality.
And I think the most important question when it comes to think about formal education is what do you want to learn?
Right?
What do you want to learn?
Now, if you want to learn how to think, University is a pretty terrible place.
At least it was when I was there.
Now, I mean, my experience in university is not tiny.
It's not huge, I guess.
I mean, I took two years of an English literature degree at a campus of York University.
I did a little under two years at the National Theatre School.
I spent another two years at McGill University in Montreal.
And then I did a Master's at the University of Toronto in...
Oh, who can remember?
So, you know, a bunch of different schools.
And I do believe that schools were better in the past than they are now.
The lag of sort of creeping, crappy, socialist, lefty indoctrination is...
Well, it takes time.
It takes time to really screw something up.
That's sort of my basic philosophy of life.
Yeah, you can screw things up.
It'll take you some time.
Your first cigarette usually doesn't kill you.
But at some point, it takes time to really screw things up.
So, I think that university was better in the past.
And one of the reasons it was better was that it was more Marxist.
And, you know, Marxists are better than relativists.
Marxists at least have a theory.
They have a standard.
They have, you know, they respect, to some degree, at least, empirical data, or at least that their theories are affected by empirical data.
They don't have wishy-washy wish words.
And...
They have a structure which can be critiqued.
And so from all of that standpoint, I had some pretty engaging debates with Marxists when I was a university.
I took a whole course called The Rise of Capitalism and the Socialist Response that was taught by an out-and-out Marxist who I think only became a university professor because he failed his audition to be head Ewok in the third Star Wars movie.
So, I think that university has gotten a lot worse now than it was in the past.
I did not find university professors to be open to reason and evidence.
I had a guy who taught American history who was talking about making a lot of fun of Nixon and talking about how ridiculous Nixon was and showing us how the secretary would have had to sit in order to erase the crucial 18 minutes of the Watergate tapes, this, that, and the other, right?
I raised my hand and I said, well, wasn't there a huge amount of taping and recording and pretty nefarious stuff going on in prior administrations?
And he just sort of stared at me blankly.
You know, when he was going off about how terrible McCarthyism was, I asked, you know, were there Soviet spies in the State Department or in the U.S. government?
And again, you get this blank like, well, I used the right words, but I'm not getting the right response.
So basically, the way that I was often dealt with in university was similar to you trying to get your cell phone to follow a voice command.
Navigate to strip club.
Navigating to hardware store.
So until you get the right response from your cell phone, you'll just keep repeating, and then you'll give up and maybe type it in.
But you won't, oh, I guess I do want to go to a hardware store.
They have polls too.
And so that's the way it is with people who are propaganda-based lifeforms, is I use McCarthyism, and I should get this emotional response from people, how terrible it is, what a witch hunt it was, and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
I mean, McCarthyism, for heaven's sakes.
For heaven's sakes.
I mean, the communists were defending a totalitarian dictatorial regime responsible for the deaths of perhaps 70 million people.
You know...
More than 11 holocausts to be put together.
And while they were defending this mass-murdering, gulag-enslaving, dictatorial blood sport known as a government, a few hundred of them were excluded from a frivolous industry for a certain amount of time.
And, ooh, no, you have to write under a pen name!
I mean, they could go work in a hardware store, they could go work in a strip club, they could sell real estate, they could become a car dealer, anything they want.
And that was the sum total of McCarthyism and the fact that people were put in jail in the Second World War for supporting the Nazis, even tangentially, shilling for the Nazis.
I don't remember if Tokyo Rose or the woman who was sending anti-American propaganda to the G.I.s in the Second World War.
I think there was a similar one in Vietnam.
I think they were prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Shilling for the enemy.
And I'm not saying should or shouldn't.
I'm just saying this is the reality.
When you are engaged in a combat to the death and communism versus...
The Republic was...
I mean, the Communists were intently bent on world domination.
I mean, the Nazis weren't intently bent on world domination.
Germany had no intention of invading England until the war was started.
War with England, no interest in...
Couldn't possibly have invaded America anyway.
The Nazis weren't intent on world domination.
I mean, they were racists.
They didn't want to rule Africa.
Think, people!
Think!
Think!
So the Nazis weren't bent on world domination, but the Soviets were.
Openly, we will bury you.
We're going to win.
You're going to be ruled under communism.
That's our goal.
We're going to disrupt and destroy your civilization.
It's a stated goal.
It's government policy.
So Schilling and being an apologist and writing propaganda and covering up the spy activities and being spies of...
An ideology and a well-armed government intently bent upon dominating your entire society at whatever cost, through whatever means possible, well, the idea that McCarthyism was the problem.
Let's just say there's a case to be made that the really bad person in that whole situation may have been somewhat the Soviet spy's Sending military information, classified information, instructions on how to make an atomic bomb, arming a dictatorship.
It could be said that those people were doing a smidge more wrong than the guy who was talking about their existence.
Just possible.
Just possible.
But, of course, to leftist professors, which is to say, professors, and McCarthyism is just one of these, you say it and everyone must automatically agree with you.
If not, it's sort of like teaching a math course and having people argue with you that two and two make four.
So, are you going to be...
Is it allowed to think critically and to question dogma, or is it going to be a ridiculous echo chamber of reinforcing prior prejudices at the expense of truth, reason, evidence, virtue, sanity?
Well, in the arts, I mean, it's worse now, as far as I understand it, than it was back in the day, you know, back 25 odd years ago when I was in college.
It's worse now.
Well, listen to Tom Sowell, Dr.
Sowell, talk about the schools in Harlem, and he was a kid, they were pretty good, he said, they were really good schools.
It takes a while to really screw things up.
I took a course on race relations and pointed out that there are certain populations in America, blacks, who do better on a per capita income than whites do.
No slavery!
No legacy of slavery!
I said, well, a lot of indices for the black family, black communities were far better in the 50s than they are today, so they were closer to slavery then.
Doesn't that give you any pause in your argument that slavery is the explanation of everything?
This fire is why people are burned.
Wait, but people closer to the fire are burned less.
So...
Maybe the fire was in a different place.
Maybe it's a different kind of fire, right?
Maybe it wasn't a fire at all.
Maybe it was something else.
Nope!
It's just...
They have these magic words that they wield to prevent any kind of debate or any kind of examination.
And of course, should you persist, racist, right?
Should you persist with questioning the overarching McCarthyism doctrine of the suppression of brave souls fighting for the noble cause of communism, if you should question that?
You're into censorship.
You're a small-minded bigot.
You hate freedom of expression.
You hate artists.
So, are you going to learn critical thinking?
Of course not.
In university, I learned...
Well, I did take a full year course on Aristotle that was taught by a woman who was...
It seems like most of my major influence are women.
Taught by a woman, I thought she was very good.
She was very good.
She took on the relativists with panache, with her white plume.
There was a guy, I think a Muslim guy, who was talking about relativism in the class, and he was saying, well, you know, but...
What is right today could be wrong tomorrow.
And she said, under the same circumstances?
He said, yeah, values change.
She said, well, you're just talking about rank relativism, which is ridiculous.
Now, it wasn't like she engaged him in some mind-bending debate, but she did give the rank relativists short shrift, which didn't teach them critical thinking either.
I remember dealing with a problem of Aristotelian essences.
I was really trying to puzzle it out.
This is when I was, I think, in my undergrad at McGill.
And I wrote an essay and tried to sort of work out a particular problem with Aristotelian essences.
I still got that essay somewhere.
Anyway, it wasn't long, five or six pages, but really compressed.
And I handed it in.
She's like, well, what's this?
I said, I'm really trying to work on this problem.
And she's like, you know, you don't have an essay.
I said, no, no, I want to learn here.
I want to figure this out.
This is a challenge.
And we ended up having a really great conversation about the essay after she'd read it, and she really helped me to, you know, Occam's razor, break down your art.
And she was really good at that stuff.
But it's funny, you know, we were asked to draw logic trees and stuff like that with no question of whether we'd ever been taught logic in the past.
But reading Aristotle, breaking down the arguments and so on was good.
I had another course on medieval philosophy and economics, which was good.
Protestantism, the rise of the Reformation and so on, where we had to break down Luther's arguments and Martin Luther's arguments.
And it was pretty good.
It was pretty good.
It was pretty good stuff.
But not critical thinking.
So they taught you some...
Some of the courses taught you some of how to think.
Sorry, I've just said they don't teach you critical thinking.
What I mean by that is, to me, you learn critical thinking by opposing other people's ideas and having the best argument prevail.
So, if there's a teacher who's into logic who teaches you a bit about logic, which happened at times, or teaches you how to break down an argument...
That's not bad.
There's some value in that.
But to me, critical thinking is when you can really be brought into a debate and change someone's mind.
And the learning that I got in terms of critical thinking was almost never against the particular prejudices of the professor.
That did not occur.
That did not occur.
In other words, the professors did not achieve their positions as the result of critical thinking which they invited you to criticize.
They had dogma, they had ideology, they had politically correct, lefty-fashionable conclusions.
But they had not arrived at those positions out of reason and evidence.
And watching the teacher on Aristotle snap at the guy about his rank relativism, you know, putting the word rank in front of relativism doesn't make an argument, right?
I mean, that's just rank.
That's extremism.
That's not arguments.
It's just argument by adjective.
So even though I learned a little bit about logic from that teacher, it wasn't because her position, as far as I understood it, was explicitly logical.
Because given the prevalence of relativism, that would have been a great debate and I think we all would have been thrilled to have that debate for the rest of the class.
Hell, for the rest of the week, month, year, who knows, right?
Because that was a huge challenge in the culture and remains a huge challenge.
All cultures are equal.
What about female genital mutilation?
If that's not evil, I guess it'll do until real evil comes along, right?
I'll take it as a stand-in.
So when your own conclusions—and we all have them.
We all have those conclusions.
We can't reason through everything from first principles.
So, you know, I've not looked at the source data for smoking is bad for you, but I get it.
I accept it.
So we all have these conclusions because nobody has an infinity of time to study the source of everything, even if it was available.
We all have these conclusions, and I find it delightful when these conclusions are detonated.
When the building don't stand, knock it down.
Otherwise, you're just living in fear.
A roof fall on your head, things fall over.
Can't get anything done, always patching things up.
Raise the broken buildings.
R-A-Z-E, not R-A-I-S-E. For those of you who cannot follow my cross-Atlantic, quiffy dialect.
Now, I think you can learn critical thinking from...
This conversation from this show, I think you can learn some critical thinking.
How to define things, how to ask questions, how not to take things for granted, how to break down unspoken assumptions.
And I mean, we do that a lot, particularly in the call-in shows.
But also in dealing with media articles and so on, we do that stuff a lot.
But there's, of course, places online you can learn logic.
So I don't know that you need to go to school for that.
So, it really depends.
If you're going to school to learn something, figure out what you want to learn.
Now, if there are things that you can only learn by going to school, or, to put it another way, that school is required for you to practice in the field of, you know, medicine, engineering, you have to go and You have to go and get the degrees, the pieces of paper, in order to practice in the field.
So, if your goal is to practice in a field and the barrier to entry is a degree, then go get the degree, if you want.
In the heart of sciences and engineering and maths and physics and so on, biology, you will learn some incredibly useful stuff, some very helpful stuff.
It's interesting to me and I think quite telling that one of the few professional fields that has no licensing whatsoever is IT or high tech.
And the reason for that is nobody wants to impose licensing on that field because it will cause any technological advantage in whatever country implements that licensing requirement or degree requirement.
It will simply cause that entire high-tech industry to decay, dissolve, and fall into ruin, right?
Thus robbing that country of necessary technological advancement, sophistication, competition, and death-dealing hardware and software.
So if you want to go learn stuff, you don't have to go to school.
And if you go to school in the software disciplines, in the arts, you will mostly be fighting an uphill and generally losing battle against propaganda the whole time.
School was beneficial to me in some ways.
Because I was coming from so outside the beaten path that I had to work so much harder to get good grades than other people.
It's like a story I read when I was 12.
When I was 12, my brother went to England, my mother went to Germany, and I stayed with a friend of mine's grandparents for the summer.
I read short stories.
I was writing at the time, too.
I read short stories.
One of them was about a boy who was bullied off a beach and therefore had to go to a much less hospitable beach to practice his swimming.
And then he was in a swim contest and he won because he was in a much less hospitable beach where he had to fight against currents and waves and rocks and so he just became stronger.
Resistance breeds strength.
And this is why people who are in the left, who go into leftist academia, are swimming with the current and lazily floating down.
They don't have to do any real work.
They don't have any real opposition.
Anybody with any integrity and any brains and any virtue whatsoever welcomes adversity in the realm of ideas, welcomes challenges and critics.
I mean, I've had some great critics of my arguments on the show.
People where I'm like, oh wait, that's a good point.
Ah!
Ah!
You'd be dissolving.
And I've had some times to sort of say, yeah, I don't have a good answer right now, but I'm going to work on one and see, you know, I'll get back to you.
And then provoked some very good articles on the philosophy of self-defense, on whether spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle, and, you know, a bunch of other stuff that I have put forward.
So, you know, I mean, if you want to be a weightlifter, you don't lift Kleenex, right?
You want heavier and heavier weights.
And if you are somebody with good arguments and important arguments, you want more and more opposition.
And I don't mean, like, stupid opposition.
You know, like, just, you're an idiot or, you know, only bad people would have...
Like, I don't mean that.
That's...
I mean, that's like pretending you're lifting weights when you're watching someone else smack themselves in the forehead with a two-by-four.
But you want principled and intellectual resistance, which is why people who oppose me, in ways that are rational, will always get a seat in the call-in show.
So I really sharpened my arguments because I was so opposed to a lot of the stuff that was going on in university.
And I really had to work extra hard to hone my arguments.
And I got good marks even when people disagreed with me at times.
They said, I don't agree with you, but you make a good argument.
Which to me is...
Kind of intellectual cowardice of the first order, right?
I mean, if I make a good argument, then why don't you agree with me?
You're right, but I'm not going to agree with you.
It's like people who say it's not a convincing argument.
The value of the argument is not determined by your being convinced or not.
You do not have the say in whether the argument is valid or not.
So, if it's a hurdle you have to get over to get to a field that you want to practice medicine or law or whatever you want, then yeah, you go to school.
But that's just a hoop you have to jump through.
It's a long hoop, a fiery hoop, and you may have to swallow your...
If you want to become a professor, God help you, right?
Or if you're not on the left, if you want to get heavily in debt and then be rejected for every conceivable job interview you might possibly get, then...
Remember, all the leftist professors in academia who praise diversity and multiculturalism will never hire someone on the right.
Because diversity is our strength.
Well, except where we are, in which case, a monolith of leftist bullshit is our strength.
I just think that's always kind of funny to me.
So the people who say, like the leftist professors who say diversity is our strength, should themselves be setting hiring quotas to make sure they get conservatives and right-wing people into their departments.
I read an article where, I think it was about social psychologists and how many liberals on the left they all were.
Like crazy percentages.
Hundreds to one of leftists to conservatives.
And the writer would ask these professors, why do you think there aren't as many conservatives or there are so few conservatives in your departments?
And number one would be, well, I guess they're just not interested in what we do.
And number two was, well, they just don't have the intellectual capacity to do our work.
They're just not smart enough.
And then the guy would say, well, that's interesting.
Of what other minorities do you think that's true?
Which other minorities would that apply to?
Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics.
It's like awkward pause, awkward pause, awkward pause, right?
Leftists are not into diversity in any practical or tangible way.
I mean, they're just not.
They absolutely demand and enforce a unity of prejudice in their own departments.
I mean, it's brutal.
So if you're in the arts and you are a critical thinker, I don't think that academia is the place to be.
I don't.
I don't.
And I feel, at least for myself, immensely vindicated in that perspective based upon this show.
Over 100 million downloads.
Let's say I had fought my way through to become a professor.
Well, it would be very tough.
I mean, if you're a professor and, let's just say, you're a critical thinking, philosophical, anarchist, atheist, blah, blah, blah, blah, it's almost unfair To bring that to bear on your students.
Because they're coming in, sailing on the tight-brained igloo ship of 12 years of government propaganda from their schools, from public schools.
And you come in and you start blowing that away.
How on earth could you reasonably mark someone?
You know, let's say there's a midterm, two and a half months or two months or a month and a half or whatever into...
Your school year, their school year.
So they've got you two months later, you hit them with a test.
How on earth are you supposed to mark them On obvious fallacies and falsehoods that they've imbibed for 12 plus years, it would be kind of cruel in a way to mark them and say, well, you know, you've referenced taxation as a social good when taxation is in fact theft, so you get a zero, right?
I mean, just to take an example, right?
You have said that socialized medicine is a social good when socialized medicine is in fact medical and violent theft.
So, could you really, I mean, change everyone's mind to the point where they make those arguments in two months and then they have to think critically about everything?
I mean, it would just be kind of cruel.
You know, it's like dragging the fat guy off a couch and making him run a marathon.
Kind of cruel.
So I don't know.
I would either then have to mark people as having successfully understood ideas that I consider false and immoral, or I'd have to mark them down, in which case nobody would take my course and everybody would revolt.
And they'd all say, oh, so if we don't agree with Professor Molyneux's radical opinions, we just get marked down.
Yeah, because I never faced that and no other clear-thinking person has ever faced that in academia.
So, from that standpoint, I mean, people just have complaints and so on.
You just wouldn't get tenure.
I mean, it's just, you know, you get it, right?
I mean, you can't turn people's minds around that easily.
I mean, they've not been reasoned into their opinions and therefore they can't usually be reasoned out of them.
Or, you know, if you were to say, you know, 60% women in colleges these days, probably more in the arts, you say, you know, there's no such thing as the patriarchy.
Rape culture applies to men, and women have historically not been oppressed.
But, in fact, elevated.
It's women and children first.
People who were slaves were oppressed, and there was no sign on the Titanic which says, slaves first, slave owners second.
Women and children first.
Now, after they've imbibed all of this feminism through schools and the media, is it really fair to ask them to, in a month or two...
Really think critically and fundamentally because it's really painful to think critically about the lies you've been told because first you have to think critically about the lies and secondly you have to emotionally understand why those lies were inflicted upon you, were driven into you.
It's very difficult.
And is it really fair?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Is academia the place to be for critical thinking?
In the arts.
Again, sciences, I can't really speak to.
Other than I can see there's some real value in that.
But in the arts, absolutely not.
You will not get...
Now, you may want to get the degree, just, I mean, I'm relatively happy.
I have a master's in history from the University of Toronto.
I'm relatively happy.
I really got a good sense of my intellectual capacities working on my thesis, which donors can get.
It's in the bronze section.
If you donate to the show, you can go read my master's thesis.
It's pretty good.
I was reading it the other day.
It's pretty damn good.
It's helped.
If I just had a high school education, it would be challenging for some people.
I mean, not for everyone.
It would be a challenge for some people.
So, you know, all in all, I think it's vaguely a net positive that I have a master's.
It shows at least that other people have reviewed my work and not found it entirely wanting and so on, right?
And the fact that I got an A on such a radical thesis in such a socialist bastion, that's pretty good, I thought.
So, if you want to do something in an intellectual field, it may not be the end of the world to have a decent education.
Or, I shouldn't say a decent education after having argued against it.
What I mean to say is, it may not be bad to have credentials.
But...
For me, even if I had somehow become a professor and somehow hadn't managed to keep students and somehow had managed to navigate the tightrope of understanding their propaganda but not wanting to mark up and approve their propaganda, I mean, let's say I had somehow done that, you know, maximum I might have influenced a few hundred people over the course of my career, and that would be huge, right?
Let's say I taught a couple of thousand people over the course of a career, If you can influence 5% of them in any significant way, you're doing pretty well.
So that's not really much, right?
Say I taught 10,000 people over the course of an academic career.
I don't know.
That would be 500 people.
So 500 people would have influenced over a 30 or 40-year career.
Now, if I'd written books, you could say, I don't know.
But anyway, in terms of being a teacher, it would have been pretty small.
Which is not bad.
It's certainly 500 more than zero.
And you never know which one of those people is going to have significant abilities.
You know, vastly outstrip mind, do a way better job, and all that kind of stuff.
But in this situation...
I mean, it's hard to know, but it's at least a couple hundred thousand people who've been significantly influenced.
You know, out of millions of people who've listened, 100 million downloads, you know, let's say people download 10 shows, it's 10 million people, maybe 20 shows, it's 5 million people and so on.
So, I would imagine that tens or hundreds of thousands probably have significantly changed their lives as a result of this show.
And, you know, that's in seven or eight years.
And, of course, the classes in general are there and gone.
I guess you could record them and put them on the web or something like that, but they're there and gone, whereas these conversations will be here forever and will be studied forever.
And people will further understand the shows the longer they study them.
So that's another advantage in that when I retire, I don't stop teaching.
You know, when I get hit by a bus tomorrow, the show continues.
The conversations are there forever.
The monologues, the books, they're all there forever.
And I can talk about much wider and deeper topics than I ever would be able to as a professor of history or something like that.
So overall...
It was far better, far better for me to not go on with my higher education and aim to or attempt to become a professor.
Far better.
I mean, I would argue almost infinitely better in terms of the spread of philosophy and critical thinking and blah-de-blah.
So if you have a desire to learn, the question is why?
What do you want to learn things for?
Well, I want to learn things to improve my life and to teach others, to educate others as best I can.
And there's no barrier to learning things for yourself outside of university, outside of academia.
In fact, there are significant barriers to learning things for yourself in academia.
And that is the peer review process.
It's very much a collectivist process and...
The peer review process, I think, is highly flawed.
And it's the only reason it ever shows up is because of the lack of a free market.
I guess there's a kind of tiny peer review that goes on in the publishing, readers and editors and so on.
But finally, it's up to the marketplace to determine.
What gets bought in terms of books or movies or whatever.
The peer review process is very, very tribal and very, very stifling of dissent.
You have to gain the approval of your peers to get things published.
And studies have been done in the social sciences, which is all papers that agree with the prejudices of the peer review process get published and none of the ones that disagree with the prejudices of the peer review process gets published.
Peer review is, in the arts, rank censorship.
Rank and brutal censorship.
And this is not just a theory.
This is not just my thought or my idea.
This is about as proven a fact as you can have in these situations and environments.
It is brutal repression of dissenting or opposing perspectives in the peer review process in the arts.
So, if you want to learn, you don't need higher academia to do it.
In fact, higher academia will probably work against you in that regard.
If you want to teach, then the World Wide Web and podcasting and articles and self-publishing and all that provide a far better opportunity to reach people.
Thank you.
than spending five to seven years doing a PhD.
So, I mean, I've talked about it before.
It probably will come up again.
But just to sort of reiterate, if you need the piece of paper to do what you love, then I think higher education makes good sense.
You know, if you want to be a plumber and you have to have a license, then go get the license because that's the only way you can do it and not sort of live in fear kind of thing.
So, but if you simply want to learn how to think critically, I don't think that you need to go to university.
In fact, I think going to university will make, I mean, thinking critically is already difficult enough socially.
If you make it difficult professionally, which is academia, I think it becomes really difficult.
Now, this guy wants to study economics.
Well, you know, are you going to have to kowtow to a bunch of stuff that you don't agree with or that's morally wrong?
Well, maybe.
You say you've got one ANCAP professor.
Fantastic.
Okay, then great.
But what are you going to get from that university?
It's the old thing from Goodwill Hunting.
You just spent $175,000 on an education you could have got for $1.50 in late fines from your local library.
And this is prior to the internet.
So I don't think that to really learn things you need to go to higher education.
It's good to get mentored and it's good to get into conversations and debates with people.
It does help you sharpen.
But they have to be intelligent people.
And you can strike up a friendship with the professor and find it engaging enough for him to have dinner with you every now and then.
You can get engaged in online discussions.
God help you.
But, you know, you can find ways to sharpen your critical thinking without having to go through university, which, again, the studies seem fairly clear.
It's just an echo chamber of leftist prejudice in the software sciences and the arts.
So, yeah, if you need the piece of paper, get the piece of paper.
If you don't need the piece of paper, but you want to learn and teach, well, you don't need university for that, and university will limit you significantly in the pursuit of either of those, in my opinion.
If you want the credentials because they're going to give you some credibility and something that's important to you, then yeah, it's a cost and benefit.
It's a choice.
But to me, it's really about the credentials.
I think you'd get better engineers if they learned on the job than any other way.
But this is the way the system is at the moment, and we can't put our life on hold waiting for a better world.
So I hope that helps.
Thank you everyone so much for listening, and have yourselves a wonderful week.
▲
Export Selection