18 thoughts on “The Five-Minute College”

1. Father Guido Sarducci has a very accurate take on life after college. There are subjects a college student takes during his years working up to getting a degree that are mandatory or just for fun. If a subject is mandatory, a student may not be interested in what he or she is learning, and will only produce work necessary for him or her to do well in the class. Immediately after the course has ended, the student will more than likely forget everything they were taught in that subject. What they will remember is exactly what Father Sarducci was talking about – the bare minimum. Therefore, these classes, although mandatory, will not leave an impact on the student whatsoever. In that sense, what a student remembers after these mandatory classes, the “Five Minute College” will teach in the same way.
   If the classes a student takes are for leisure, then chances are that he or she will not be too worried about trying to remember important facts or information – the student’s intent will be primarily to have an enjoyable class. Once again, the “Five Minute College” will teach you the basics of a particular course, which will be what the student will ultimately remember.
   Even if a student takes classes that are relevant to his or her future career, chances are the skills taught by the professors will not be used on a daily basis in an actual work environment. If the student does not to recollect specific information in his or her work field, the information will also soon be forgotten. If one does not utilize what they learn, then there is little to no chance that any of the material will be retained. As the old cliché goes, “practice makes perfect,” or in this case, practice will simply be the way to remember.
   Father Guido Sarducci may be extreme and satirical in the way he presents his idea of college afterlife, but he gets his point across. Ultimately, the things learned in college will not be remembered and will therefore become meaningless. It is a partial waste of time to spend countless years taking classes that will soon be forgotten. On the other hand, it is true that there needs to be some sort of foundation in the understanding of a subject before being able to enter certain work forces. Perhaps there is a middle ground where the vital courses can still be taken, but taught in a way that would make them more applicable to a person’s life.

   I agree with Maya Angelou’s thoughts on intolerance of ignorance but not with her take on being understanding of illiteracy. I understand that not everyone has the opportunities as everyone else. Education, especially in the era, is extremely costly so not everyone is able to afford it. However, in today’s society, anyone who has a desire to become educated or literate can find a way. So there is little excuse for someone to be illiterate, or at least in wealthy countries. Ignorance and illiteracy is a person’s own fault and can be avoided with education and research. If someone is unable to go to school, they can still find a way to learn and become knowledgeable. We have libraries, we have the Internet, we have books, and we have news – all ways to easily acquire information.

2. I do agree, in part, with the ideas Father Guido Sarducci talks about, with the concept of all the unnecessaries learned in college, and in school in general. But I think the extreme take that he puts forward on the subject is extremely limiting. I do agree, with both him and with Petya, that we forget a lot of what we learn. We don’t use a lot of it, and the less we use what we’ve learned, the less impact it has on what we’re doing and on our memory. I don’t remember a lot of what I learned in calculus two years ago, and compared to the bulk of my life yet to pass, those two years are nothing. But I don’t think that the things we learn that we won’t really use anymore are worthless. I think that the core of a liberal arts education does a lot for people. It’s founded on the principle that the things you need to be an active member of society and to truly understand the world come from an at least basic knowledge on a lot of subjects. It’s true that I won’t remember the details of every book I write a paper about, but I have learned how to think and how to analyze, and I don’t think that’s something I will really unlearn. I won’t remember every math technique or physics formula I ever need to know for a class, but I will learn ways of internalizing information and solving problems that I wouldn’t have without rather extended periods spent using those specific techniques, techniques I may not know in a few years. I think we get a little bit too caught up, not only in our pursuit of measurable success, but also in our pursuit of solidity, of facts. A lot of the most important things we learn are not concrete things. They’re ways of understanding the world, things that can be applied across many majors and many career paths, used in every walk of life. There is a basic amount of knowledge, I think, that goes into fulfilling your life. Which doesn’t mean that a housewife or a stay-at-home-dad or a painter is any less fulfilled, necessarily, than a biochemist or an engineer or a doctor, so long as they are walking the path they feel led to walk. I think fulfillment does come from knowing how to interpret the world, though, and that’s something you can’t learn in five minutes, or even a few months. It takes years, and I think it takes years of learning things you might, eventually, or even quickly, forget.

   I totally agree with Maya Angelou’s quote. I think that’s a thing that’s hard to remember, that some people don’t have the opportunities I’ve had, don’t have the chance to learn everything that some other people have learned. There are brilliant people who don’t have access to education. I happen to have had the privilege to grow up in a house full of books and in a community that fostered my curiosity and creative exploration. Not everyone has had those chances, and there are people all over the world who don’t even have access to any kind of school at all. I think ignorance in and of itself is a kind of intolerance, an unwillingness to be educated on the world and its inhabitants, but illiteracy, or any kind of lack of knowledge which comes, not from lack of intelligence or willingness to learn, but from a lack of opportunities, is a grave misfortune, and not a fault.

3. How the hell am I supposed to follow those^? Anyways, I agree with Father Guido Sarducci’s claims on life after college. A student will only retain so much information after their education. Most likely, the student will happily forget lessons learned that are not relevant to their careers. I also agree with Petya when she describes how a student will recall information only when they are constantly exposed to situations that puts it to practice. However, is that really the only way to retain information from your college education? It is true to an extent, but I also feel that a student will remember subjects that they were truly passionate about. These subjects do not necessarily need to be practiced but should have had an impact on the student’s perspective on their academics. Additionally, I agree with Esther’s words of wisdom about how there is a basic amount of knowledge that is necessary in life. Understanding, analyzing, and interpreting the world are abilities that unite all scholars. They are also practices that are developed further throughout college. Consequently, these are lessons that I don’t think will ever be forgotten. Ultimately, although it is impossible to memorize every specific detail of every subject learned through college, developing abilities as a scholar through that experience is inevitable.

   I agree with Maya Angelou in her understanding of the limitations of educated people in unfavorable circumstances. Everybody has the ability to learn and develop as an educated person, therefore ignorance should be frowned upon. As for illiteracy, it can be tolerable. Like I said, some people may be faced with unfavorable circumstances that prevent them from adopting this ability like poverty or even disabilities. It is also possible that those unable to attend school can be more educated than university professors. However, this does not necessarily mean they have what it takes to be a university professor. It is the ability to enlighten other individuals that separates a university professor from other educated people.

4. I don’t really agree with Father Guido Sarducci’s take on college afterlife at all. Yes, it is true that we do forget a large amount of what we learn in various classes throughout our education. I can attest to that, because there are more times than I can count when I’ve tried to help my little sisters with their homework, and it is sometimes nearly impossible to remember a specific formula, or that minor detail/trick that makes balancing chemical equations easy. But even though all the content that I’ve forgotten might be a lot, I’ve still retained what is most important. Even though I might not remember every detail, I’m still well versed in that subject. I feel that taking a lot of seemingly useless classes in college could be of great benefit, because at the end of our education we gain skills such as problem solving, and analytical thinking, that are and will be essential in our future.

   I do agree with Maya Angelou, because I do feel that there’s a lot of people that are more “educated” and intelligent than a lot of professionally educated people, including university professors. Not to say that university professors are not educated. I’m sure that Maya Angelou just means means that you could be educated without schooling. My dad for example is one of the smartest people I know, he can play with numbers like no person I’ve ever seen, and he stopped school at 6th grade, because he had to work instead.

5. Christina, Don’t be so sure about all college professors.

   It certainly seems that our sense of what being educated is should be defined. Society often takes for granted that having a college degree is a sign of someone having knowledge that is superior to someone’s who did not attend. Is being intelligent diffferent from having knowledge? Would Christina’s dad’s mathematical abilities been expanded in a university with his apparently God-given gifts?

   After all, Einstein avowed, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”

6. Dear Carlo:

   Please don’t look down “irrelevance,” as that is what I have majored in most of life. Condoning my specialty, Edgar Allan Poe noted on the matter: “Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger, portion of truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant.” Embrace the unnecessary.

7. I agree with Father Guido Sarducci — to an extent. The amount you remember from college depends on what you do after college. If your career is directly related to your studies, then you’ll be using the knowledge you gained constantly. Everything else, however, will most probably be forgotten.

   I absolutely agree with Maya Angelou in regards to ignorance. To me, nothing is more unbearable than a person who proclaims his/her ideas on a subject area in which they are completely uninformed. There is a Jewish proverb that states: “Silence is a fence around wisdom.” This is particularly relevant now, in the age of Google and Wikipedia. If you can’t be bothered to read about the topic, just stay quiet.

   I have mixed feelings about Maya Angelou’s second point. There are a lot of people who are truly intelligent, regardless of their education level. However, lack of education and knowledge severely hinders the growth of a person, no matter how smart. Not only do college professors have the upper hand in education and knowledge, presumably they are intelligent from the start — otherwise, why pursue a career in academia?

8. I understand where Father Guido Sarducci is coming from; it feels like nowadays many graduates joke a lot about not being to remember the majority of what they learned in high school and college I appreciate his satirical attack on this situation, because it seems very accurate and baffling at the same time: why are/should students pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education in which most of the material is not even being retained? I don’t entirely blame the students themselves for this; it’s partly understandable since the human brain can only remember so many concepts and details especially about subjects they aren’t particularly passionate about. It’s also about not using most of the material learned; for those students who go through college with a very broad liberal arts education and then get a job specialized in only one field, it is highly unlikely that the other material learned will be of any use. But does that mean colleges should stop trying to force students to have a wide liberal arts education in subjects that the students are not interested in? I still think students should be given a taste of a variety of subjects to make them more well rounded and interesting people, but I think one of the main problems that many educators might encounter that is impossible to solve is that learning is just too unlimited. I have a problem with the way many high schools and colleges structure the curriculum for the class. Since there are too many concepts and details to be covered, even in an introductory class, many educators are compelled to cram in as much of the topic within a short time period. Again, this is useful for getting a little taste of everything, but the quality of the learning itself suffers. For example, I noticed in high school syllabi that so many different units and concepts must be covered within a few months to prepare students for finals and AP exams. Week after week, new material is constantly being thrown at students with not much time to contemplate and ponder “why this is so” or “how this really works” and these students are forced to regurgitate these flat two dimensional concepts. For example, I remember I loathed high school physics because there was just too much stuff in the curriculum and my teacher breezed through each major topic within a few days each. Even before one idea completely sunk in, we had to move on to the next topic. Also the material barely scratched the surface of what actual physics is; all calculations were to assume “in a vacuum without friction, without air resistance” basically in an ideal universe which wasn’t even applicable to ours. For me, physics was all about memorizing formulas to plug-and-chug for the biweekly exams, and I haven’t retained any of the concepts. Right after the tests were over, I unintentionally immediately just wipe 99% of the material that was on the test out of my mind, just because I felt like I wouldn’t need to know any of this for the future. And I hated this.

   I hate the way our education system is so obsessed with test taking that it takes out all the fun and curiosity in learning out and solely revolves around memorization and cramming. This isn’t what learning should be, and that is why so many graduates forget almost all of what they “learned” throughout high school and college. I would actually prefer the 5-minute university compared to the test-obsessed education system we have now, because at least Father Guido Sarducci is honest. At least I would learn what I would need to learn without wasting my time and money. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

   I try my best to remember as much as I can in high school, and I do for subjects like Biology and Chemistry because I actually enjoy those subjects and they will be useful to me when I enter the scientific field. But I also remember what I learned from reading the books in my AP English literature class and in my Organic Chemistry class because of the way the classes were taught. My organic chemistry told us how to look at the molecules and how to understand WHY the reactions occur in each step of the mechanism instead of how to memorize the start and end product of a synthesis. My favorite teachers are often the ones who teach me how to think instead of how to cram. Why does economics have to be about just supply and demand? Why can’t it be about chain events and interdependency in our society, about how just buying a bag of chips from the supermarket actually has a massive ripple effect on our real GDP, about how real people like us actually have the power to influence the way our world is run? Even if I never touch the field of economics, at least I can understand the basics and why supply and demand fluctuate the way they do. Why do classes have to be about the answers? WHY NOT THE QUESTIONS?? My favorite classes are the ones that taught me how to ask questions, to wonder about the way I think and how the world works, not how to answer them. This is how education is supposed to work. Obviously the teachers cannot teach the students everything there is to know about a subject, but teachers can be passionate and inspire the students to GO OUT AND WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN!! (sorry for the caps lock, it’s currently midnight and I just get super excited and I feel like I’m on a roll). So yeah, the 5 minute university skit is actually accurate, but at least it shows that there are problems in the way education and learning in schools is structured, and we can change that.

   As for Maya Angelou’s statement, I’m not sure if I flat out agree or disagree, but i feel that our society has warped the meanings of “intelligence” and “knowledge” that it’s impossible to know what they actually mean now. We all have different perceptions on what intelligence and knowledge in. I don’t have much to say, but I do think that no one is necessarily smarter or more intelligent than any other person; there are many different types of intelligence that isn’t just exclusive to college professors. Sure I have a high amount of respect for college professors, not (only) because they are intelligent to an extreme level, but because they worked hard to get where they are with their degrees. There is always more to learn and learning never stops, and this is applicable to the most illiterate person and the most highly educated college professor.

9. Dear Patrick,

   You’ve composed a superb portrait of the plight of the modern student and the at- times flawed pedagogic methodologies thrown at him, which reminds me that Aristotle once noted, although not recently: “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.”

   Save this essay. It might come in handy in the future.

10. Dear Sharon,

    One usually pursues a career in academia because the alternatives are so forbidding. Too many dentists commit suicide and being a plumber is hard on the knees.

11. Dear Esther,

    An incisive exploration of what education is and what it can accomplish, one worthy of applause, one which reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt quote: “I am a part of everything that I have read.”

12. I do agree with Father Guido Sarducci’s opinion to a certain extent. Many graduates do in fact remember very little from school. They spend four years or more in school but can only retain very little of the information that they have learned. As Patrick mentioned, they spend thousands of dollars on an education to which they can only remember a tenth of what they have done. They might have received A’s in the class but only because they focused on the materials when they were taking the class. After the class is over, they move on to the next course and hardly even bother to recollect what they learned previously.

    However, I do disagree with Father Guido Sarducci’s because certain students actually do remember what they had learned even after graduation. They might not remember it off the top of their head, but once it is mentioned, they can clearly remember the concept. Father Guido Sarducci’s sarcastic theory may be applicable to many students, but not all.

    I do not agree with Maya Angelou’s statement. Yes, certain people are naturally smart and have a certain potential to be great. However, to say that they are more educated and more intelligent than university professors is quite a remark. Everyone has a certain level of potential to be intelligent, but it has to be developed through schooling and in a disciplined manner. While many professors teach in universities because of their level of expertise in a specific field, they may continue to do groundbreaking research outside of the classroom. Many see professors as mere teachers, but they may be contributing to the world in another way. This can only be achieved if they have an education and have proven that they are the right person to conduct such research. Intelligence may be given, but education must be sought after.

13. I agree yet disagree with Father Guido Sarducci’s views. College is simply what person makes of it, as cliche as it seems. Unfortunately, most people do not take go to college to learn nowadays but simply view it as a stepping stone onto their career path. Once their college experience has reached its end, students continue onto their jobs only retaining the knowledge that was useful for their careers. This is how students only remember effectively, five minutes worth of knowledge from college other than necessary job information. Most engineering students scoff at the english and history courses. Most scientists do not even know a lick of literature. However, information that would be useful for jobs, like how to run a PCR, would be readily retained after college. Most engineering student would not forget the basics of calculus or engineering design. They easily have more than five minutes worth of information about science. So I agree with Father Guido that most people do not remember much from college, other than information they deem valuable.

    As for Maya Angelou’s quote, I do not completely agree with it but I do not disagree with it either. There are, without a doubt, many smart people who could not succeed due to the environment they were in. Perhaps, their parents did not have enough money to send them to a prestigious college. However, knowledge and intelligence are the same thing. Knowledge is simply knowing facts, intelligence is being able to make the best decisions at the right moments. A college professor would undoubtedly have the most knowledge, in his/her field. However, that professor may not be the best at decision making. Therefore, this quote really depends on whom it is referring to.

14. I honestly think that the point of a university isn’t just for learning. One of the big problems that I and, hopefully, others experience is indecisiveness in their choice of major. One of the things that college helps with is the decision process because there is no way that you can fully understand what jobs are right for you unless you have some way of trying it out. Going through the many required classes really shows you which subjects you enjoy. The five minute university would lack this and will force you into a job you may hate if you are unfortunate. Father Guido Sarducci does have a point when he says that you don’t remember most of the stuff you learn in college. I don’t remember most of the history courses i took in high school, but I realized there that I truly enjoyed subjects like physics and math. Many people may end up forgetting what they learn in college but they learn from the experience whether or not it was a field that they would enjoy.

    I believe that Ms. Angelou is definitely right when she says that people who don’t go to school can be more educated in the end. When you learn something on your own it is always something of interest and this will probably lead to you remembering it for a much longer period of time. On the other hand, many classes that are required may not interest you, and this will lead you to forgetting it more quickly. Thus, people who don’t go to college can end up retaining more than what they learned and this would definitely lead too them to becoming smarter than those who end up in college.

15. I partially agree with Father Guido Sarducci’s view on college education. In terms of the content we learn in college, yes, we will probably forget a majority of the information – because we don’t use it. For example, if a student learns Spanish and his future career really doesn’t require him to use the foreign language, then it’s reasonable that he would forget it. It’s the same with any other subjects. The classes, though, that you take that will actually help you in your career are the ones that matter (major classes). I feel that other classes, where only a minute out of the entire semester is retained, train you for work. The grades in college admittedly are based purely on regurgitating information back onto a piece of paper, but I feel the real gain from college or any educational institutions are the skills you are taught.

    Some classes require oral presentations, group work, self-studying – all important skills one should have for their career. Taking classes that you may or may not feel are completely useless, forces you to prioritize what you need to concentrate on; it teaches you that, sometimes you will have to do work that is 100% irrelevant to your future, but at the end of the day, it needs to get done. So although Father Guido Sarducci is right in the sense that his “five minute college” is equivalent to what a college graduate retains five years after graduating, the skills the students have racked up from the classes are far more important and lasting.

    I don’t fully agree with Maya Angelou quote on ignorance versus illiteracy either. I don’t think that ignorance is always necessarily a choice. Sometimes people are brought up a very specific (and narrow-minded) way, which forces them to grow up in an environment where anything unfamiliar to them is deemed wrong or bad. This is why I don’t think ignorance should always be intolerable, but rather be intolerant of narrow-minded perspectives.

    Maya Angelou’s take on university professors seems to be more about the fact that “going to school” doesn’t define how intelligent or well-educated someone is. On the superficial scale, yes, professors technically are more educated because they’ve gone to years of schooling and research. What about intelligence? Isn’t intelligence the capacity for learning and applying knowledge? Is it fair to compare someone who had the privilege of a formal education his entire life to someone who can’t even have the opportunity to attend school? Perhaps Maya is talking more about the potential some people have – if they were in the same playing ground as professors, there’s a high chance the professor isn’t the one that would win.

16. Father Guido Sarducci claims that most people forget most of what they learned after graduate school, and while this may be somewhat true for certain subjects, I feel it depends upon the person. I feel that if the person had a passion in what he or she was learning, it’ll be much easier to retain everything that was taught. However, subjects that one may find uninteresting and dull will most likely be forgotten over time. Even though it’s only been a few months, all the information I was fed in high school have faded and my main memory remains in the subjects that I was interested (physics and mathematics). While his Father Sarducci’s act was highly entertaining and comedic, I feel that by the time a student graduates graduate school, he or she will be far more knowledgable than a person who did not attend.

    That said, this brings up Maya Angelou’s quote. Being knowledgable is quite different from being intelligent. I feel that educated suggests an education and I probably wouldn’t agree with the usage of that word, but I guess I’m just being picky about semantics. Anyways, I feel intelligence is something inherent to people from birth, but some people may not be able to apply it depending on the circumstances in which they are born into. This reminds me of Michael Faraday, an English scientist, who contributed immensely to the field of electromagnetism. This field of physics is something that nowadays requires extensive knowledge of mathematics, and in general, people tend to associate physics with mathematics regardless. However, Faraday had no to very little mathematic background. Not to say he was uneducated in general, but he was clearly very intelligent. He was able to draw beautiful diagrams and pictures of the electric and magnetic fields he envisioned, and while he may have been uneducated in mathematics, he made a major contribution to the physics field. Now, clearly this doesn’t relate directly to the quote as Faraday was educated; however, I feel that it can connect in the sense that one does not need to follow the convention of educated to be considered intelligent. Of course, I probably didn’t keep my ideas in direct relation to the quote, but I feel that being able to come up with innovative ideas in an unconventional manner is a form of education not cannot be really taught by the education system currently.

17. Dear Petya:

    You overwhelm me with your fine analysis of the matters at hand. I promise to constantly reread your blog entry, so at least 37% of it will never leave my mind.

    Yours,

    Prof. BJ

18. Dear Shawn: If you were as articulate and thorough orally as you are on blog entries, you could become the Sophocles of your generation.

Comments are closed.