"Shouldn't it be a place to drift, to think, to read, to meet new people, and to work at whatever inspires you?"

Should it be? Perhaps it's time we reevaluated what college is supposed to be about. Given the skyrocketing costs of a college education, not to mention the opportunity costs of the 4 years spent there, maybe we need to think of the "investment" in a college education as precisely that: something to be taken quite seriously.

I wouldn't want my child to debt-finance a startup, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, just so he could "drift, think, read" and so forth. So why is it ok that he does so for college?

College is the last great chance to "drift" in life before one has to grow up and get serious. Sure. But it's also the most pressure-free environment in which to build the foundation for the rest of one's life. It's a huge investment, literally and figuratively, to waste aimlessly. Use college wisely. Not every second has to be a grind, but on the other hand, I don't think over-grinding is the issue for most of our country's college students. Have some fun in college, yes. Expose yourself to new ideas and cool things. Great. But don't treat the experience as a four-year vacation from the real world.

I don't mean to come across as a heartless 'tiger parent' in this comment. But these romantic notions of college strike me as increasingly antiquated. They're luxurious fantasies that many of us can't afford to nurse.

The social implications of college seem to get lost in the debate on HN, and really everywhere to some extent. We don't send our kids to college simply for their own good, we do it also for the good of society, which is why, in the past, people saw fit for society to cover most of the cost.

  > But these romantic notions of college strike me as increasingly antiquated. They're luxurious fantasies that many of us can't afford to nurse.

Look at the hyper conformity of the average consumer.

I'd pay anything for health (insurance co exec and hospital exec smile)

I'd pay anything for my kids to get a good job, and rich peoples kids used to get great jobs, and also used to get an education, therefore education must be required for great jobs, so I'll pay anything for my kids vocational educational training (university execs rub hands together in glee at idea of multigenerational 10% annual tuition increases)

I'd pay anything to live in a nice safe location (sellers and commissioned real estate agents and commissioned mortgage brokers/bankers jump up and down with excitement at a new sucker)

There are a couple things in common. Suckers who see the expenditure as a universal, unarguable good, and entrenched players doing the ogliopoly thing by purchasing .gov regulations to prevent a free / competitive market.

Any time you hear some well trained little consumer drone claim they would pay anything for some trite object, we just hear an idiot, but a businessman hears a cash register bell... Pay anything you said? Well... that can certainly be arranged...

Education for your kids, health insurance to finance treatment for deadly illness, and personal safety are hardly "trite objects". If a person would not spend highly on these things, what would he be willing to spend on as a higher priority?

Finally another key to the puzzle is its perception that sells not the product. If you think your insurance company will stand by you to help you thru an illness, they would never try to screw you and your heirs as much as possible, well, I've got a bridge to sell you. "The system" is crooked enough that if someone is selling you safety you can pretty much assume they're just screwing you over; kind of like any argument in politics involving "its for the children".

Granted these are typically less expensive than the services you mention, but they're certainly not less important. Rather, they're sold in functioning, normal markets of private firms.

When was that?

I'm immensely grateful for my time at University to explore not just a variety of topics, but to explore myself and my interests.

But look at the wealth of the median college student. College is no longer a privilege of the 1%, but a requirement for the masses.

That fantasy is still free and luxurious and new and cool, just you need an internet connection (which you need anyway) instead of attending school. If you're the type that doesn't want to learn, going to school isn't going to help much, and if you're the type that wants to learn, you don't need the school (to learn) if you have the internet.

The only remaining purpose of school for most, is social signalling and some advanced (and some not so advanced) vocational training, and a few nuts like myself who still think education itself is worthwhile, as opposed to mere vocational training.

Since college I have made my living entirely in the outdoor and computer industries. It's been a fun and productive career.

I think that's what the author meant by drifting--not getting drunk all the time, but exploring other interests.

If I didn't drift, I'd have a much harder life today: writing and geology are industries that have become less lucrative since college. My current career--building and operating websites--did not even exist when I matriculated!

Stanford is a world class research institution. If it accelerates people creating companies by a few years, what's so bad about that?

Even if 100 people a year dropped out of school to create startups, Stanford would still have a much higher graduation rate than most US universities. Especially ones with nationally ranked football teams. This is a false problem.

The only downside I see in the article is perhaps the professors and administration are taking their eye off the ball on other topics while they act like VCs.

Now, the romantic ideal of these old-time universities is the image of the rich sons attending dad's school so he can get set in with the next generation of Good Old Boys. Boy, what a shame we've lost that.