I've just finished reading an article discussing the declining value of higher education in America from this week's Economist. As the topic suggests, it was a sobering and pessimistic read. However, I thought that any discussion was focused too much on higher education not being good value for money and didn't even give mention to the non-financial benefits of being at university.
When I recently told a (much older) Cambridge alumni I had studied international relations for my MPhil but don't use it at all in my professional work, he responded with something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter. We do it because it's interesting." I don't think education can be classified as consumable leisure, but I do think the ability to one's intellectual curiosity and become exposed to a wider world of people ideas is not quantifiable in monetary terms. It's the little things like the friends you make for life and the little pleasures you acquire. As personal examples, I play Halo with my roommates in Berkeley weekly to stay in touch, and my year in Cambridge gave me a taste for choral music that I will continue to enjoy forever.
Of course, despite "party schools" and the many students who spend more time drinking than reading in college, higher education isn't all about fun—we all need to make income as productive members of society, after all. But nor is it just a four-year, leveraged financial product (using student loans) with calculable return on investment. Obviously, this isn't a point that is uncommonly made, and no one can fault The Economist for using the occasional tone of strictly financial rationalization, but I would have thought it a nice touch if they had ended with a more upbeat remark, as they usually do.
