The general argument made by author Dale Stephens in his work, “The Case Against College,” is that college is no longer necessary to be successful. More specifically, Stephens argues that we should begin shifting toward an uncollege movement. He writes, “If we still needed public education to fulfill its original purpose — to train factory workers in the industrial revolution — then school would work brilliantly. But times have changed,” in this passage Stephens is suggesting that public schooling is no longer an essential for success. In my view, Stephens is right that college may not be as necessary as it used to because we have had over a century of public education. More specifically I believe an uncollege movement could be a step in the right direction, although I object that everyone should partake in the movement. 
One of Stephens main points in his argument for the uncollege movement is that college kills creativity, however this creativity has already been killed in the twelve years of previous schooling leading up to college. He based he hypothesis off of a study done on kindergarteners scores on the divergent thinking test, which measure one’s propensity for creativity. Of the kindergartners tested 98% tested at the genius level. Later, after five years of formal education the same student’s were re-tested and the results were staggering, only 50% of the children tested at the genius level. A stifling number considering the IBM poll taken in May of 2010, of which a survey of corporate executive officers deemed creativity the “the number one leadership competency of the successful enterprise of the future.” This would lead to a conclusion that the schooling that leads up to college needs to be changed because the school system does kill creativity. Many schools have begun changing their curriculum to charter schools where they are not bound by as many rules as public schools. This gives the teachers and students more opportunities to incorporate more activities that invoke creativity. The United States government should try and re-work the education system to be more like these charter schools. They could also partially tweek these schools so more studying and learning can be done outside the confines of a classroom. Students are most likely losing their creativity by the daily routine of school. Students have been lectured by teachers all their lives and it causes many students to lose interest and as a result their creativity. How creative could someone be that just does the minimal work to get by? Which of course is what many students in middle and high school do, and so by the end of high school they have killed all their creativity. A possible solution could be to split up the students’ day. It would consist of half the day being the typical structured class, where the students would learn mathematics, history, english, and science. The second half of the day would consist of applying the knowledge the students learned earlier in the day, in a non-formal learning environment. The students could participate in experiments and explore learning without crushing their creativity. Also instead of the usual homework, students would watch videos from the khan academy to prepare for the next days lesson. This way teachers would spend less time teaching the students the material, and more time applying the material in a creative way. I believe with a greater emphasis on outside learning and activities that incorporate creativity, more students would fall into the genius range on the divergent thinking test. 
The second point made by Stephens is that students come out of college with more debt then they can handle, yet this debt is in investment for these student’s future. Stephens says, “There are a little over 19 million college students in the United States, each of whom are graduating with an average of $24,000 in debt, according to the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success.” He believes this debt causes many college graduates to just settle for a job, instead of finding a job they have a passion for. As part of his uncollege movement, Stephens believes potential students can create their own education by following mentors, attending college classes only as needed, and starting up businesses. This would give many unschoolers the opportunity to gain real experience instead of learning from the strictures of the classroom. The problem with this theory is that many of these unschoolers are not going to be qualified to get jobs. Today many of the high paying executive jobs require at least a four year degree, and often require a master’s or even a doctorate. With no formal college education, these unschooler’s would not even have a chance of getting one of these jobs. Also according to the 2010 Employment Projections done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the United States Department of Labor higher education pays. Those with doctorate degrees and Professional degrees make on average nearly $1,000 more a week than those with only a high school degree or less. In correspondence with income the results of higher education have an effect on the unemployment. Almost 35% of the unemployed have little or no college education. This led me to the conclusion that college is an investment, although I believe it is a rather costly one that most likely turns away many potential students. One possible solution is to reduce the general education classes. Over a students time at college they build up immense amounts of debt from basically unnecessary classes. I am an intended business major and cannot enroll in the official school of management until I have taken the prerequisite courses. These are classes like economics and mathematics, which are essential in the business world. However, as part of the Universities requirement to graduate I have to take two semesters of classes such as, english and world civilizations, plus other classes such as psychology and sociology. These general classes are going to force me to attend school for two years before I can even apply for the business program. Not to mention these classes do not accumulate toward the necessary average to be accepted into the program, virtually making them useless. If the university dropped these unnecessary required classes I could finish all of the prerequisites at the end of my freshman year. This would reduce my stay at the University at Buffalo from eight semesters to about five and also save me thousands of dollars. I believe combining this reconstruction with the reforms of the education system leading up to college could truly benefit students. Students would be able to attend college with their creativity in tact, they would be able to graduate and get into the work force sooner, as well as come out of college with less debt. I believe this would lead to a snowball effect. With students being more creative and having less debt they could apply for the jobs that truly interest them and that they would actually care about. More innovations in technology would be made, which could help the United States economy to get back on its feet.
Another statistic that Stephen’s used to come to his conclusion is that homeschoolers do better on standardized reading than those in formal education. The National Home Research Institute found that homeschoolers scored in the 87th percentile, while the students who received a formal education only scored in the 50th percentile. A seemingly thorough study that addressed all the factors that would affect these student’s scores, the parent’s education level, the amount of money spent on education, and minority status. This would support Stephens’s theory that school kills creative thinking and does not address the skills and knowledge that needs to be taught today. This coincides with his theory that the school system was designed during a much different time and has now become obsolete. The school system was created during the industrial revolution in an effort to help many poverty stricken families escape the cycle of these horrifying sweatshops. Children as young as four or five years old would work twelve hour days and be paid substantially less than other employees, while facing dangerous conditions that could result in injury, disease, or sometimes even death. The school system was supposed to educate the children of these working class families so they could one day get a job outside of the factory. They could create a better life for themselves and then hopefully their family would not have to endure the same hardships they had to. However, I believe this forced education is hurting peoples creative thinking. Its nearly impossible to keep one’s creative thinking intact after twelve years of the same boring drag that happens day in and day out for millions of students in school. This is why the school system needs to be altered, but I do not believe homeschooling is the answer. Even though these statistics given by The National Home Research take into account the three major influences, one very important one is left out. The research did not take into account families income level. Wealthier families of homeschoolers would be able to provide higher education than can be learned in school. If the research had been done again and this factor was taken into account the scores would be much more similar. Families that homeschool they’re children who are in the lower income levels are not be giving they’re child as good of an education as they would have receive had they attended a formal school. However, the research done by the institute does bring up a new element that I am going to integrate into my plan for reconfiguring the education system. It seems students achieve better in smaller classroom settings. There they can receive the personal attention that they need. I believe the system could use student teachers in grad school who are intending to get a job in the education field. In supplement to being a student teacher these students could be a student tutor. During the students first half of the day when the students are learning in the formal environment an hour should be allocated for small group learning exercises. The class should break up into groups of five or six and learn from the student tutor. The students would be able to learn the material faster because of the personal attention and keep more of their creativity by not being stuck in the formal environment too long.Dale Stephen’s uncollege movement is something of a new trend but it is gathering support quickly. Stephens believes college is a poor investment and kills our creative thinking. I agree that our current education system does not address the problems that we face today and is quickly becoming more obsolete. I do not believe dropping out of college is the answer though, but instead reconfiguring the current system that leads up to college. Schools should try and incorporate more creative thinking exercises into their plan to help keep students engaged in class. Splitting the day up would ease the tensions of the daily grind that students are currently in. With additional support outside the classroom students would learn faster and not kill their creative thinking. I also believe college needs to be slightly reconstructed so students are not forced to take the unnecessary and costly general education courses. Students would still be successful in their careers and would be able to save thousands of dollars and graduate faster. I believe that the uncollege movement is not the answer, but there are changes in education that need to be made to better educate today’s youth and provoke more creative thinking.
