What if Messi Does Not Want a Higher Education?

Should we always view higher education as a goal and not as a mean? And must we always adhere to the dogma that almost everyone should go to college?

In Alia Al Hazami’s “The Commercialization of Education”, Al Hazami brings up a discussion she had in her Economics class on whether Messi should seek a higher education. Al Hazami thought that he should maybe try to seek a degree along with his career but conceded that it is not a must. Her classmate’s reaction prompted her to reflect what education means to people, for they argued that his career is a much better source of income than any degree. She argued that viewing a degree as an income generator alone is not right. She believes “it’s about time people stop viewing education as a monetary tool, and start going back to its essence and what it truly means.” Well, I view her argument as both noble and a form of wishful thinking.

Al Hazami has the right to feel shocked at how education, especially higher education, is viewed. So many advice I received regarding my education were based on maximizing my career and monetary opportunities. I was told to stick to Chemical Engineering despite not liking it. I was told to continue my studies abroad despite the personal issues it got me. Only one person told me to do what I am best at and what I like. I will get to his sage advice later.

Ideally, a person should enter university or school because they truly seek knowledge and because they are curious. This romanticized view of education held true before the industrial revolution, where education was for those born to it (the wealthy and the specialized families such as doctors) or those who really sought it. The stories of many great academics start the same way; they showed genius and interest. Newton didn’t become one of the greatest scientists of all time because he needed the degree to be an eligible bachelor and marry a proper girl (in fact, he did not marry at all). Einstein was in an office when he first started to get inspiration for his famous four theories. He did not pursue them because he wanted fame (or at least there isn’t much evidence to show as such). Almost every brilliant person I met was focused on what they are doing, not if what they are doing is financially beneficial.

In a sense, everyone should do what they should do to maximize the strength of the economy. That means that everyone must do what they do best given the utility for the state or community. That is a utilitarian approach to what people should do, but the current drive for a degree is personal interest. Everyone seems to act on what they believe maximizes their benefits, and there are only a few people who do not care about power or money at all. The reality is that the market wants degrees, and people believe a degree is the safest path to a steady source of income. Does that mean they want to be in school? Not necessarily!

However, I cannot blame a computer engineering student for thinking that he wants Computer Engineer because he likes computers while in fact, he shows great affection and prowess in writing fantasy literature. In fact, should he succeed to cultivate his genius in fantasy writing, he would benefit greatly and so would the Emirati economy. However, it is a leap of faith which he is not willing to take. There are few lucky ones who happen to be good at it and like what they are studying, people with natural academic ability.

People’s risk aversion is why Al Hazami’s classmates answered the way they did, and it will also be the main factor in many of their life decisions. Even their ancestors stuck to what they knew and took the safest option for means of living. Very few people would risk everything to follow a passion. As such, the economy stands now, and students are inclined to like their higher education no more than they did their primary one, for they think they have no other option.

However, there are the risk takers who would go to frontiers others fear. The sage advice I received from that one person (who was arguably the “most successful” of them all) was that people are types. Some seek absolute power and/or wealth and will act as such, some wish for a stable life with a steady ladder and growing family, and then there are those who care not about such “mundane” things. These people would pursue their curiosity even if it means they must work the lowest of jobs. They wish to self-sustain only so they can go on to follow their passion. He concluded that these people should not take the path of the first two, for wealth and safety has little meaning in their lives as opposed to their thirst for knowledge.