The Case Against Stephens

            The general argument made by Dale Stephen’s in his work, “The Case Against College,” is that college is no longer necessary to succeed in the world.  More specifically Stephens argues that college kills creativity, puts family’s into debt, and that the knowledge learned in school doesn’t have anything to do with what one does after school.  He writes, “the problem is schools kill creativity.”  He is suggesting an un-college movement that would lead students into following a passion after school instead of attending a college.  He believes the conformity of a college kills our creativity and stunts thought.  One of the basis for his claim is the divergent thinking test’s taken by a group of kindergarteners of which 98% scored in the genius range.  However, after five years of formal education only 50% of the same students were in the genius range.  This would lead to the conclusion that school does kill creativity.  He believes that freeing yourself from the strictures of the classroom and authority you can escape the system that squanders creative thought and ideas.   Although, by the time students attend a college or university they have already had a formal twelve-year schooling and have had their creativity killed.  I believe a movement could be led to restructure the schooling before college that can help students truly come to terms with their creativity.  Some schools have begun teaching with new ways and innovations to try and spur creativity in its students such as, the school without walls.  They try to teach their students from non-traditional teaching methods.  They take more field trips and do more learning and experimenting outside of the classroom.  I think that is a leap in the right direction.  After students graduate their creative school I believe college would be a great opportunity because it gives them an opportunity to compare their creative skill with other students who had similar schooling.  Today CEO’s have determined creativity to be “the number one leadership competency of the successful enterprise of the future.”  We need to be putting more time and thought into reconstructing the school system so it does not kill our creativity.

            The second point Stephens makes is that school puts families into an incredible amount of debt.  More specifically, he argues that students should drop out of school so they can stay out of debt.  He writes, “it’s not about dropping out of school — it’s about making a sound investment in your future.”  The average student comes out a school with about $24,000 in debt and is forced to find job to pay off the debt, instead of following a passion they are truly interested in and have a hunger for.  I agree that the debt students come out of college with is ridiculous but I don’t think dropping out of college is the answer.  Today many jobs require at least a four year degree and some even want additional schooling to complete a masters or doctorate.  This leads me to believe if everyone dropped out of college, who would be the doctors and scientists that save thousands of lives?  Not to mention college is the first time for many teenagers to live away from home and take on more responsibilities.  It is a time to experiment and explore the world and decide for yourself your opinions of this world.  The college life gives many teens a chance to discover who they truly are and to become an adult, while still having the benefits of being a kid.    

            The third point Stephens argues is that the knowledge learned in school doesn’t apply to what most people do after.  He argues that too much emphasis being put on the STEM subjects, science, technology engineering, and mathematics.  He writes, “I’m not convinced that what one studies in school has anything to do with what one does after school.”  In this passage Stephens is suggesting that many jobs and careers people pursue aren’t necessarily what they studied in school.  More specifically Stephens believes we need to put less emphasis on the STEM subjects and more on the need for people to pursue knowledge for more practical applications.  He uses the example of how even though Facebook and Microsoft were created in Universities they were created outside the classroom.  I also believe that more emphasis should be put on learning outside the classroom.  Students would be able to see first hand how math and science work together without having hundreds of formulas pounded into their heads.  I believe this is where the creativity is truly destroyed.  After sitting in a classroom for an entire day having different formulas and equations drilled into our heads, its pretty hard to go home and come up with new creative ideas.  I believe an alternative could be to cut the school day in half.  Having the first part of the day learning these formulas and equations and having the second have to put the formulas to work and coming up with new creative ideas. 

            Dale Stephens brings up many great points to be considered, however I believe some of his ideas are unrealistic.  I think there needs to be a change made to the school system but I do not think dropping out of college is the best plan.  If students could be freed from the constraints of the classroom I believe they could truly find their ultimate potential.  The world is the best place to experiment, not a classroom.  Teachers long lectures fry the brains of their students and eventually causes them to lose focus, and killing their creativity.  I believe the schools need to combine learning and creativity into one.  I think a half school based day and a half day based on experimenting with students creativity  could help students find their true passion and the world would see newer and better Facebook’s and Microsoft’s in much less time.