Jamil's Revolution in Post-Secondary Education.

Introduction
These days they say somewhere around 75% of university graduates have careers that are entirely unrelated to what they studied in university. Money and fresh years of life wasted, and nothing to show for it but a compromised spirit. I wish university was structured differently.

I wish it was such that instead of declaring a major a minor or a specialist, you could simply declare that you would like to have a 1 year "Diploma" or a 2 year degree, or a 3 year degree. So if for instance if you wanted a basic diploma in the humanities, you would spend a year learning about humanities and you would devote yourself entirely to that discipline. If you liked it enough to get a solid academic understanding of the subject matter, you would undergo a 2nd year, a grueling year of advanced theory in the subject, giving you a 2-year degree, equivalent ot a major today. If you wanted to learn enough to get accpeted into grad school, you would undergo a 3rd year of super-advanced theory, which would gear you up for grad school years. For the MBA program, since they want applicants with experience, this 3rd year could incorporate focused networking with employers in your stream, alongside a focused study on your desired stream. This would be an honours program.

Like for instance a stream of management - in your first year you would take the gambit of courses in the division of management. So this would be like all of the first year courses, accounting/finance, econ, management, finance, and like HR. If you don't like it, you leave it with an Diploma in management, acknowledging your basic knowledge in the field. If you find a stream you have a passion for, you declare it and move on to your next 2 years to get your diploma or honours diploma. So like, in your second year, you declare you want to persue econ, and so you take the 2 micro and 2 macro courses, and some other econ related courses, econ of health care, econometrics (stats), calculus, etc.. if you hate your degree after 2nd year, you leave with a degree in econ, cuz let's be honest, after anywhere between 8 and 10 courses in economics, you have enough knowledge to be able to say, "yea i know a little economics." Finally, if you seriously love econ and want to teach it (like me!) or get a safe gov't job with it, and do your masters and phd and all of that, you take the 3rd year, which is like grueling intense advanced economics theory and application. So your 3rd year is basically a feeder into a master's program.

Body
Now you could do this for any stream of study, the arts, the sciences, as well as business studies, all of the traditional courses hold, just the structure would change. This is why I think my revolution is superior to the current structure of university.

As I see it, there are 4 types of university students:
a) Not sure what they want to do as a career in life, still trying to find out, but wants to find a path
b) Not sure what they want to do in life, or simply doesn't care, they simply come upon higher education for the love of learning
c) Pretty sure of what they want to do in life, just following the path needed for success
d) Pretty sure what they want to do in life, but turns out they're wrong, and they realise this during the process.
-Any university student today who has even once questioned his or her choice in education knows which of these 4 students falls through the cracks of the traditional university structure and how, so i won't waste time describing that, however I will outline how all 4 students are better supported by my new structure. So if you're bored already, choose which of the students best describes you and check out my brief outline. But be sure to read D, I like D.

A) Currently this person is forced to pick a subject they want to enter before university even starts, most often they don't enjoy it and so after 1st year they have to find a new stream of study with little or no exposure to that subject, and no valid reason to choose it. But they have to choose, because you only have 4 years to get any acknowledgement for anything you do in university. But with my structure, you leave highschool, pick a stream you think you enjoy or will make you money, and you try it for a year, if you suck at it or hate it, you get accrediation for it, so future employers and such will know that you have a background in it, just not an extensive one, and you move on. Feasibly, you could tackle like 4 streams of study, from english to physics, to management to chemistry, etc. right across the board, and still specialize in something like politics, or econ, or whatever, and do all of that in 6 years. Just imagine! Having a substantial and specific understanding of 4 university streams, then finally finding your path and having an extensive understanding of something you love in 6 years. Considering the vast majority of these types take 4-5 years to find nothing that they like, but something they can tolerate, with a tacked-on "minor in something," i think that's quite the improvement.

B) So, I'm assuming that when this guy decides he know longer wants to be a career student, he's going to want to get a job. So even if he spends 8 years messing around, and he took, Women's Studies, Sociology, Psychology, Management, Science, English (2 years), and Physics. So he's 25 years old (provided he come out of HS @ 17 like these new kids do!) and he knows a fair amount about a fair amount, but the only thing he liked enough to do for 2 years was english. He started off, (and still is) so lost and undecisive, but he wants to do something like writing, or teaching. Look at how well prepared he is! He's 25, and look at how broad his horizons are. If he wants to teach, just imagine what he's bringing to the table at teacher's college with knowledge in 7 disciplines. If he wants to be a writer, well he's got a huge background of knowledge and he's only 25. He could spend 4 years travelling to gain some experiences and become one of the most knoledgable writers of our time before he hits 30! Hell he could off the law school and try that out, finish before he hits 30 and know more about the world then most of our current politicians even claim to know! He is no longer bounded by shackles of picking a major and minor, he is free to use academics for his own purposes.

C) So, you're in the sciences. You're going to be a doctor. Your parents told you so, and you've agreed. You take the 3 year sicence program, and you're ready for med school when you're 20. badda bing. Or...
So, you want to be the CEO of GM, and you love money but merely tolerate people, and you just want to get the paper saying you know anything and everything about being a controller, you spend 3 years doing that, and finish when you're 20! But employers like well-rounded candidates, so you spend a year learning the ins and outs of sociology, and another year learning everything about psychology. Now you're 22, and know all about money and all about people, what's stopping you from making 80,000 a year? No experience? Well you're 22. Young enough to go get some! Or you could get into a coop program whose structure i didn't bother desribe because it's the same shit plus you work in the summers instead of doing nothing! Imagine that 22 year years old and ready to do an MBA, or go out and start that business, or get that middle-management job. Or...
Whatever! Whatever your passion is, you can explore it at an accelerated rate, faster then you would wasting your time with electives, or minors that you sleep through just to appear well-rounded. If you need to appear well-rounded, cuz employers or grad-school demands it invest a year in actually really learning about that other subject matter. It's so much more authentic being able to say, "I spent a year learning the ins and outs of..." that other discipline, rather then "Every year i had to take an elective in..." that other discipline, and the knowledge is more focused.

D) So your parents say you're going to be a doctor, and you agree. You spend 2 years in science and find out you want to be an artist. You're 19. You pick up a paint brush and spend a year trying that out but nobody seems to enjoy your interpretation of stick-men, so you quit that after a year. You're 20. You realise it wasn't really the art you loved but the freedom of thought in art that you loved so you try philosophy for 2 years, and come to an epistemological conclusion that philosophy is a purposeless adventure for the mind and quit philosophy. You're 22. Philosophy has you confused, but you know only 2 things:
a) You think, therefore you exist
b) You exist, therefore you need money.
So you try business for 2 years, but hate it and stop. You're 24. Through all of this you realise that what you really want to do is to play professional soccer, or baskeball. You're still 24, so you can actually do it. You try it out, it works and you play basketball for 6 years, then your knees give and you have to retire, but you spent all your money on women and cars with big rims so you're broke. You're 30, and broke. You persued your dream but now that's over. Now all you really want is a job and a family, but how will you get one? Easy, You have a degree in philosophy, a degree in science, and a degree in business. The horizon is endless.

Conclusion
Even for the most indecisive of people, getting a degree under my revision-of-structure for higher education is a much smarter decsion. Why? Because persuing a discipline under my structure comes at a lower risk (less time involved, with a stronger focus on that discipline, while still a prestigiously academic focus, unlike traditional trade schools. With this lower risk, there is actually a higher return! Why? Because with whatever you end up wanting to do: if it has anything to do with your chosen discipline you can go at it faster, if it has nothing to do with education, you can go at that faster and waste less time in school, and most importantly, since less time is wasted, you have more time to authentically find out what you actually love, in life.

My finance people will ask the obvious question, "Low risk but High returns, how?" because the number one rule in finance is "There's no such thing as a free lunch!" meaning you can't get something for nothing, and surely you can't get something for less! Lower risk should equal lower returns, and high risk with high returns. So how does all of this balance out? Easy, the universities take on higher risk and lower returns. How? They bear the risk of having students getting degree after degree from the universities (potentially 5 degrees before they even hit 30 years of age) which brings down the relative value of such degrees (the 'dime-a-dozen' phenomenon). As for the lower returns, with the falling relative value of the degrees comes a falling credibility and prestige of the University. Prestige is the foundation upon which universities generate money. Think of it, why did you come to the University of Toronto over Ryerson? Aside from the tacky Yellow and Blue colour scheme, it was really about the name brand!

There's no escaping this tradeoff between the students and universities, except for one. If every and all universities changed their structure, then the relative value of the universities would remain unchanged, and we could all get a free lunch! So if this long-ass theory of mine has any merit, it still has no application unless it was enforced countrywide! I guess, just as history teaches us, you don't change the world one step at a time; it actually takes one giant leap!

c1995 Jan 22nd! Jamil Lumley's Work. I'll spare you and myself the legal jargon, but don't copy my shit!! I plan on publishing a book sometime after my undergraduate, and what i've written here will be at least in part in my work. Probably more formally although.