[Poker Cat]

Learning how to learn is certainly worthwhile.
Does it take a four years and a $125,000 college education?

The boundless lauding of the institution of college is more religion than science. Frequently I hear people make a list of worthwhile goals -- learning how to learn, etc. And then jump to the conclusion that college is the best or only way to accomplish those goals. Where is the evidence? I know, I know. Studies show college grads make more money. But that's no proof of causality -- college could simply be a marker for smarter, more ambitious people.

I agree that "learning how to learn" is a critical skill. I also think acquiring it in college is way too late. I certainly didn't learn it there. Poker helped. As Mason wrote in an article, students who wish to excel at poker must spend a lot of time studying and thinking about the game. I found out what the right books were, read them, played, made mistakes, thought about them, reread passages, played some more. I stopped Mason and others occassionally at the Bike and asked a question. College did not teach me this process. It may have taught you, but there are other paths.

As for the self-justifying prof who recommends an Ivy League college for the connections it will get you, I find that offensive. If I want to get a position I haven't earned through cronyism, I'll bribe a politician. They're cheaper.

In any case, I reiterate that my entire rant amounts to no more than a nitpick on Ed's article, which stresses financial discipline. Without it, no amount of income will make you successful.

And that, I am sure, no college can teach you.