One of the readings from this
semester that still seems to grab my attention the most is Louis Menand’s “Live
and Learn.” Last year, as an LSA
student, I would have definitely agreed that college was a theory two. College was a place to expose students to
valuable things for personal and intellectual growth. After being accepted into Ross this summer,
and immersing myself into the classes this semester, I now have a different
view on college. To me, college has
turned into a theory three. I would now describe
college as a place that provides specialized knowledge to acquire specific
skills for a certain purpose.
![]() |
| This is supposed to be a professor checking to see if the students are "actually learning anything." |
During
discussion, most, if not all students, felt that theory two applies to the type
of education we are currently experiencing.
I also thought theory two was most applicable to college, as it is
supposed to teach us valuable things about the world and enable us to learn
without the concern of a GPA.
As the
semester continued and the discussion about Menand continued, I have come to
realize, especially by being in the business school, that I am not in full
agreement with the fact that college is a theory two type education. Although I agreed to this at first, with much
thought, I now feel as if college is a theory three type education. In lecture we discussed that the students
that come from Harvard and Michigan are a very small part of this theory three population. However, I must disagree.
During
freshman and sophomore year of college, I do believe these two years fall under
theory two. During these two years,
college is about learning. College is
there to emphasize liberal arts and well roundedness. Students take a range of classes with multiple
different topics to start to find out what they want to do in life. But it does not end here….
The years
progress, and the student becomes a junior.
As you start to come closer to the end of your college career, I feel as
if finding yourself starts to settle down.
But what happens during the next two years of college that changes the
fact that it might be a theory three? My
answer to this is that students must choose a major. As students become juniors and seniors, they
stop taking the liberal arts classes just to fulfill their credits, and start
taking classes pertaining to their major.
They are now going to college for a certain purpose, to fulfill their
major. College starts to provide
specialized knowledge for the major the student chooses. College may not be vocational training, or
leading to a specific job, but I feel it is specific enough because it is in
that field.
![]() |
| This image is supposed to represent the idea of students taking many different courses to finally choose a major. |
One example,
pertaining to myself, is a student choosing to be a business major. By the end of sophomore year, the student
will start to realize what in the field of business really interests them, and
they will want to continue with that interest.
They will no longer take accounting, finance, marketing, and other
classes, and start to focus on one of these fields. If they decide they are most interested in
accounting, they will start to take more advanced accounting classes, to
further their knowledge in that field.
Now, they have a purpose. They
want to do something in the field of accounting. Their purpose now of being at college and in
the business school is to be provided with specialized knowledge about
accounting to get a job in this field.
![]() |
| The Ross School of Business logo. |
In the end,
college is there to provide you with the knowledge specific to what interests
you the most. Once you choose your
major, you have a set path, to accomplish this major, and college will provide
you with knowledge specific to that major.
I have come to think of college as a more professional institution.



I really enjoyed your post. I have to agree. I think college definitely changes throughout time and is different from person to person. But I think right now, college, for me, is defined by the first theory. This is Michigan; competition is everywhere. I don’t really think what I am learning right now matters; it is just where my grades fall in regards to other people. Ross is extremely competitive and I doubt admissions was looking at whether you took a variety of classes other than the prerequisites. Your GPA was probably the predominant factor in your acceptance, which would be described by the first theory. I do agree with you that as student’s near graduation and start taking more classes that match their major, theory three is more prevalent. But overall, great post. It was enjoyable to read and I really liked how you personalized it.
ReplyDeleteNicole, it was nice reading your post. While taking classes towards our major certainly does lead us to believe college is more theory three, I think there is more to the picture, especially at a place such as the University of Michigan. Here at Michigan, the faculty does a fantastic job of combining Menand's theories. While each student has a specific area of focus, other requirements force students to take classes with a broader focus so they become more well rounded. While the Ross School of Business will certainly prepare you for the business world well, I believe one of the main focuses at Michigan is on the other classes outside of your major. The skills learned in those classes give us a better understanding of how society functions and what role we may be able to play in benefiting it. Obviously doing well and absorbing information from classes for your major is extremely important, but so is the potential value from the others.
ReplyDeleteNicole-
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post! I can definitely relate being a sophomore in Ross after taking all my classes in LS&A last year. However, while we have followed the same collegiate path so far, I have had a far different experience of the purpose of a college education at Ross. While you wrote that your experiences have led to a belief that Ross displays an education as providing “specialized knowledge to acquire specific skills for a certain purpose”, I see Ross as a strict example of Menand’s 1st theory: that college does not worry itself with what is being taught but simply acts as a sorting mechanism to arrange students in a hierarchical pyramid of ability. This is extremely apparent and I am reminded of it every day. First and foremost, every class is graded on a curve meaning that even if you get 90% of the problems on a quiz or an exam correct you could still be left with a low “B” grade, depending on how the rest of the class performed. To me, this process does not ensure that everyone acquires specific skills by rewarding students when they have acquired these skills but ranks students in a hierarchy. Moreover, the entire recruiting process within Ross serves as a sorting mechanism for employers by rewarding students with the highest grade point average. While in LS&A, it is possible for everyone to acquire the skills needed for a career with the same GPA, in Ross, it is impossible that you succeed in a class without pushing a fellow classmate down in the rankings. While this competition can be healthy if placed in the correct context, these are the reasons I think Ross exemplifies Menand’s 1st theory of education as a sorting mechanism instead of his 3rd as a source of skills.
Thanks for the read!
-Brennan
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post brought up an interesting argument about Ross and the different theories of education. Your post provides a good argument about the nature of a business education here at Michigan. However, as a fellow Ross student, I felt that reading your post confused my opinion about our education even further!
I agree with you that as Ross students, we begin to take career-oriented classes and start partaking in a theory 3 education. However, I don't think that we completely lose the liberal education that theory 2 describes. Ross still requires us to take 45 (or something like that) electives outside of our core classes, including LSA classes. I feel as though this is the school's attempt at maintaining a balanced theory 2/theory 3 education.
Reading your article also prompted me to think about the way that a Ross education also fulfills theory 1. Since all Ross classes are curved students are inevitably separated by grades (sorted in a sense). In addition, certain sectors (Finance) 'encourage' students to maintain a certain GPA to be hired (>3.7).
Because of the argument you make and the additional observations which I have just mentioned, I find it really difficult to peg a Ross education as any one of the three theories. Rather, I think Ross is a mixture of all three, for better or worse.
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your overall idea regarding how multiple theories can become applicable to a single person at different times throughout their intellectual journey through college. For me I can think of a way that each theory applies to me. For example, I want to maintain a high GPA throughout college because I feel that if I get higher grades employers will see me as a better potential employee. In that respect, I am embodying the idea of theory 1. Furthermore, as an engineer I am required to take at least 16 humanities credits in order to expand my intellectual breadth, showing that our school is trying to respect the ideas of theory 2 as well. I feel like this definitely shows that U of M agrees that a lot of these humanities classes offer a lot of information that any person really ought to know, and by taking these classes I will be more informed as a citizen and such. Lastly, I definitely think that theory 3 is very applicable to many engineers, especially computer science engineers for example. If you interview for a job with this major you will likely be asked to program something during your interview, and it looks bad if you are unable to do so. Therefore, your potential employer is just making sure that you have the necessary and very specific skills with a purpose that are needed in order to work for them - showing that theory 3 definitely holds true in this sense as well.
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and you definitely made some interesting points, but I found it hard to agree with your assertion that Ross students experience a theory 2 to theory 3 transformation. I would argue that Ross students are a mixture of theory 1 and theory 3. The application requirements for Ross are fairly simple with their being a heavy emphasis on your calculus and economic grades. In this way, Ross uses freshman year as an intelligence test to see who can rise to the top in both of those classes. Students applying to Ross destroy themselves making sure that they get the best G.P.A. possible their freshman year, because without a high G.P.A., the admissions won't even take a look at your application. If you are fortunate enough to be admitted into the school, then your experience exemplifies theory 3 values. Even Menand notes that students that major in business are theory 3 students noting that these students are only after the credentials and vocational preparation. I may be wrong in assuming this, but I would guess that most students aren't in Ross isn't to learn everything they possibly can, but are more focused on their future. Students in Ross want to get good internships while they are enrolled in school and great jobs after they graduate it. Students that know the most about business and have the highest G.P.A. are setting themselves up for both. For these reasons, I feel that a specialized education such as the one the prestigious Ross School of Business provides are a combination of theory 1 and theory 3 values.