College Miseducation
March 11, 2010
Frak writes:
I’m a 21 year-old male college student. I want to thank you for your blogging. Your weblog is valuable in ways you’ll never know.
Kristor is absolutely correct in the previous post about this: “What is an alpha female? A pretty, intelligent girl who is chaste.” Unfortunately, as a college student, I can tell you with a very high degree of confidence that the prettier the girl, the more sexual partners she has likely had. The pool of pretty girls who are chaste is, well, extremely tiny at my university – perhaps 5% of females qualify, if that. I sometimes wonder if young women simply don’t know that, as they gain sexual experience, they become less attractive. Collective action problem – guys certainly aren’t going to tell them this (hah!) and I suppose most of them have feminist mothers who don’t want to believe it or just don’t know.
The simple reality is that the college social scene is dominated by fraternity and/or off-campus parties which are characterized by heavy drinking, inappropriate (i.e., highly sexualized) dancing, and “hook-ups”. Girls can barely have an enjoyable social life while refraining from engaging this social scene.
The fundamental problem is that college students are spending four years partying, hooking up, and memorizing material that is largely useless in their post-college years. 21 year olds should be working, saving, marrying, and having kids, instead of partying, hooking up, and memorizing largely useless material. What ever happened to apprenticeships? This would be a more efficient system for most professions as far as time and money are concerned (obviously not always the case – engineers, accountants, nurses, lawyers, etc must be trained); 95% of what people use in their real jobs they learn on the job!
One quibble. One question on the quiz is: Does she lift weights and pursue an exhausting exercise regimen? Perhaps ‘exhausting’ is detrimental, but a young woman should tone her muscles through lifting weights on a regular basis. Obviously, she should not seek to develop large muscles – the aim is toning.
By the way, have you ever heard about this theory put forth by Aaron Russo? He claims that the Rockefellers admitted to supporting feminism financially and otherwise to increase the tax base and to indoctrinate young children by putting them in public schools. Do you believe he is correct about this?
Thank you for your time and your efforts on your blog. You are brave.
Laura writes:
Thank you for writing.
The majority of college women do not know that men find sexually experienced women less attractive. These women have been miseducated and brainwashed. As you say most men aren’t about to dispel the myths. The curious thing is why more fathers don’t teach their daughters the truth. I guess most fathers are feminists too.
I agree that the current model of college education is wasteful and often useless. It is a crushing burden on families, a major factor in delayed family formation and the lowered birthrate. Admission to college matters more than what you do when you get there. It’s true that college admissions are an effective sorting mechanism for employers and certainly college in some areas is essential, whether it’s highly technical or scientific fields or for the higher liberal arts, but for many students what they do in college doesn’t count as long as they graduate. Apprenticeships would make sense for many jobs. Allan Carlson, who is a champion of family-centered social change, has written about the need for more apprenticeships, which would decentralize education and benefit small family-run businesses.
For women, the college years bring heavy indoctrination into feminism, libertinism and the passionate pursuit of career. There are better ways for them to spend their parent’s money. Learning is important for women, very important, but college is no longer the only place to get higher learning. The more people who go to college the more stupid and dissolute we become.
It”s the obsessive pursuit of exercise and physical conditioning that can be a sign of a masculinized competitive edge. It means self-absorption, shallowness and the loss of femininity.
I haven’t heard of Russo’s theory before. If he is claiming feminism was brought on by a conspiracy of a few rich and powerful people, I disagree. If he is saying that feminism was encouraged by the rich and powerful out of self-interest, I agree. The labor pool for one is much bigger as a result. Feminism leads to greater concentration of power in bureaucratic institutions and benefits big business. It has had some salient short-term economic effects.
— Comments —
Jake Jacobsen writes:
And perhaps the most horrible part of this whole college mess is that modern college has become nothing more than a multi-thousand dollar proxy for an inexpensive IQ test such as the Wonderlic.
And this all because blacks have lower IQ’s, hence do more poorly on standardized testing, hence standardized testing is evil, hence ergo American kids must now spend thousands of dollars on moderately pointless college educations to prove America isn’t racist and blacks are essentially shut out of college because of their lower IQ’s.
Which begs the next question: will we next begin shutting down colleges and selecting employees by tossing chicken bones? Because that really would be more fair, no?
Laura writes:
The college admission process protects the ideal that anyone and everyone can merit admission to a good college through hard work. It’s rigged to protect an egalitarian ethic in general.
The system we have now, which means a person’s future is very much determined by performance in high school, is discriminatory to men because they develop more slowly than women, are not as interested in extracurricular drudgery, and are not as satisfied by school work.
An IQ test would provide employers with most of the same information college admission does at much less cost to America’s families. Probationary periods of employment can tell the rest.
MarkyMark writes:
Kristor suggested that a twelfth question be added; it was the one about how many sexual partners has a gal had. That was changed to: has she had any? If that question were used to find a girl (particularly among college women), you’ll eliminate 99.99999999% of women these days! The number of women who are virgins prior to marriage is asymptotically close to being 0%. Women have to live the empowered ‘Sex and the City’ lifestyle.
Frak writes:
I would like to clarify my point on education. There are many professions that require formal academic training (engineers, accountants, etc). But the current system of education forces students to endure 4 years of undergraduate studies through the age of 22 after 12 years in state-run (or, perhaps, merely state-approved) schooling. Twenty-two years old! Not to mention graduate school for some careers. By the age of 22, throughout the vast majority of human history, most people had quite a few years of job experience and a kid or four! If a young boy wants to be an engineer and he has the brains and the drive to do it, then the educational system should be structured so that he can get his first job – an apprenticeship, probably – by the age of 16 or 18. If he wants to learn history, literature, or languages, then great, but these should not be a de-facto requirements to become an engineer.
I think that part of the cause of the cultural degeneration in colleges is that students are aching to get out and join the real world and have real jobs and be independent, self-reliant adults, but the system is preventing them from doing so. As a result, students engage in reckless behavior out of sheer frustration and a visceral desire to experience something new and exciting after, well, about 16 years of this tedious, politically correct, repetitive, and sometimes medicated (ritalin) drudgery. Hence, parties, hook-ups, drugs, and alcohol.
Laura writes:
Yes, I agree. No culture has held so many people captive for so great a part of their lives in educational institutions, most of them state-run institutions.
