School as a means to an end (only)

Sarah S. G. Frantz posted about a request to substitute readings in her class on genre romance over at Teach Me Tonight. I thought her response to the student was very well reasoned and tactful. The comments that followed, ranging from a discussion on reason vs. belief to NCLB were interesting as well. One thing really caught my attention though. At one point, Azteclady (quoting Marianne McA in a response to AgTigress) wrote:

Marianne McA, replying to AgTigress, said in part:
Perhaps they might want a particular degree or career requiring that qualification.

That is the attitude that bothers me the most. People who think like that about any particular bit of their college experience are not there to learn, they are there to get a piece of paper in order to move on to make money.

Later in the thread, Sarah noted that

Of course students go to college for that extra piece of paper and the money at the end of it. I imagine most Masters of all varieties are pursued for the same reason. Only the very wealthy or those who just don't care about money can afford to go to college for the sheer joy of learning.

I find that observation about learning as a means to an end only to be depressing, even though I understand the impetus. Even though I went to college to get a degree and obtain a better paying job than would have been available to me with only a high school diploma, I love(d) learning. I spent most of my primary and secondary school years unchallenged and frustrated, bored by classes taught to the lowest common denominator.* The classes that suited me best were the ones where I was left to my own devices or ones that were designed to promote learning independently. When it came time for college, I knew what I wanted to do and that it would require education beyond a four year degree. So I spent those four years learning all kinds of things that were not specifically related to my chosen profession. Languages, literature, mythology, political science, comparative international studies, statistics, math. My degree is what my engineer friends call a Useless Liberal Arts degree, which I followed by a “professional” degree. But I spent four years studying things just because I wanted to, unlike my friends who spent four years taking classes they merely endured in order to qualify for a particular job. Of course, I then spent three more years qualifying for my chosen profession, three years that nearly killed my love of learning because of the rote torture that was inflicted. But even now, I take night classes. They don’t contribute anything to my day job; they aren’t “continuing education” in the sense of a professional requirement (tho’ I do have to take that, too) and although my employer will pay for some advanced degrees, my classes don’t qualify. Why take them, then? Because I can. Because I want to know more.

Learning as a means to an end is okay with me. But education as a piece of paper only concerns me. The disconnect between "education" and learning scares me even more. What does it say about us as a culture that we're intellectually uncurious, interested in learning as a means to an end only? I'm not sure but it scares me a little. 

Of course, this entire post may just be maudlin indulgent bs engendered by lack of sleep and caffeine.

*The only class that I can think of that wasn’t taught to the LCD was “Advanced Math” (Algebra II/Trig). After the first exam, which most of the class tanked, the teacher split us into two sections, one with 6 students who moved on, and one with 20 students who were re-taught the first quarter and went at a slower pace. Only in retrospect do I realize how much extra work that teacher created for herself by letting the six of us advance while going slower with the others. Of course, she was rewarded the next year when we all went on to take calculus, which was normally a class with minimal demand – usually students wanting it had to take AP Calculus elsewhere. Which is another thing I find curious in retrospect – physics was offered every year and had higher demand, but not calculus? In my mind (perhaps erroneously), the two are linked.