A while ago, I wrote about what I feel is wrong with school, and the whole framework of going to school for 12 years so you can pay huge sums of money to spend even more time in university, for the sake of getting a decent job. The more I think about it, the more I realize that this system is not only silly, but probably more harmful than good. First of all, how many people can really get into university? Given the huge expense and time investment required, unless a person has a solid support base (usually their parents), it is very likely that that person will quite simply never be able to make it into university. Ever. This leaves the priviledge of a relatively normal, prosperious life in the hands of only a lucky few who can afford it. How fair is that? Worse, it doesn't have to be this way; It's this way only because of the gluttony of the universities, who charge far more than the average person can easily afford. And the problem is not helped by the employers who are the reason people get those degrees in the first place. The current system of spending years in a university to get a degree, just so you can have a decent life, is obsolete. The modern philanthropist cannot justify investing that kind of time and money in a piece of paper which benefits only yourself, a piece of paper which is only needed because of the mindset of employers as they exist today. Employers place huge emphasis on degrees. If you have a Bachelor's Degree, you automatically will earn more money for doing the same job, even if it's in a field completely unrelated to the work. That goes double for a Master's, and we all know how sought-after people with Ph.D.s are. Ironic, when you consider what those pieces of paper really mean. It's all well and good to spend some time in a place of higher education and do some studying, but in the end, experience still wins out over all. Degrees are based on lengthy, sometimes impractical and too often useless study. As an example, the average Computer Science graduate will have studied a great many things about computer theory, but in practice, will not really know how to do much anything useful with a computer. Indeed, most CS grads wouldn't know how to install a new hard disk in a computer. Experience still wins out over all. A person who's spent a solid year working with computers hands-on will know more about (or at least have a much more practical and less theoretical knowledge of) computer systems than a 4-year university graduate. Employers need to recognize this if the current situation is to ever change. Real education, and not paper education, needs to be emphasized more than ever in today's information age, where there is more that needs to be known than ever before. University education emphasizes selfishness. It requires a person to spend money, usually most of the money they have, on themselves. It also requires that person to devote most of their time to studying. For the years that they are in university, people have absolutely no time to think of others or the world around them. They are simply immersed in an environment where everything they do, is done for themselves and their future. The really important things are usually forgotten. People lose all sight of the real problems in the world, the people in the world who have much deeper problems than failing an exam, the all-important compassion for other human beings that is the basis of decency. The more I think about it, however, the more I realize this problem is not by any means limited to university. Rather, it's part of a larger problem: The fact that most people don't have the resources to help each other. People see the ads for starving children in Africa begging for a few cents of money, and think "That's very nice, I wish I could send money to help, but I can barely afford my mortgage as it is right now. I'm sure someone else will be generous enough to help." The problem is, most people are in the same situation: They just don't have anything to spare. Even middle-class people barely scrape the bottom. Their money is tied up in things they buy for themselves: A decent house, nice car(s), food, and other basic necessities of life. Incresingly, the world is full of people who are lucky if they are able to support their own selves. They have no resources to help the ones in need. Small wonder, then, that the less fortunate often lack any means of getting help. I see no really feasible solutions to this problem. The cause is that a few rich people have most of the money and resources. Were they willing to share, a great many could find relief. But instead, the rich selfishly spend their money on themselves, buying private jets, mansions, pimped-up cars, and the like. They are sitting on a vast mountain of aid to those who really need it, yet they waste it. About the best solution I can see is for everyone to rethink what they do with their time and money. Most middle-class people don't really think about what they could do with the money that they make. They think about nice things that they could get for themselves. But do they even consider that to have a job, any job, makes them so much luckier than much of the world? Apparently not. Perhaps they don't think about how many people they could touch, in even a small way, if instead of spending one night watching a funny TV sitcom, they volunteered at a homeless shelter. Maybe they don't think about the food that five dollars, an almost negligible amount of money, could buy. You've probably heard all this before. And yet, how many people listen? How many even bother to seriously try to use their resources for causes other than themselves? The public mindset needs to change. The "every person for him or herself" system must change. People need to consider how much they can do with what they have, however little it may seem in relation to the magnitude of the problems. In particular, the university paradigm needs to change. The world needs to realize that a person is not stupid just because they don't have a degree. The modern-day philanthropist must devise new ways of making it in the world, ways to support themselves without spending their money on a university. And perhaps above all, the paradigm of "success" needs to change. "Success" is a word much thrown-about by virtually everyone these days. "How do you define success?" is a common question. Answers almost always begin with "money", then move on into "power", "fame", "comfort", and the like. Success is the ultimate goal. What everyone strives for, what everyone really wants to do with their life, above everything else, is achieve a success which hinges on their selfish goals. If the world is ever to become a place worth living in, that must change. Success is not how much you have done for yourself, but how much you have done for others. When you measure your success in how much you have helped the people around you, you will have finally got it. Which would you rather do: Buy three houses for yourself, or one house for another person? When your answer is the latter, you will have begun to attain the mindset of the true humanitarian. In the past, people have written various "manifestos" detailing their revolutions (or attempted revolutions). I have used the words "philanthropist" and "humanitarian" in this writing already. How many people use these words to describe themselves? For that matter, how many would want to if they thought about it? I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I'm a humanitarian. I want to be one. But whether I am or not, reading back over what I have just written, I realize the tone is manifesto-like. It calls for sweeping changes not only in the way the system works, but in the very public mindset itself. I did not consider myself a revolutionary. I have never intended to be one. But if this is what I believe, and if I encourage others to join this cause, then I suppose that is what I am. Let it be so, then. I want to be a truly giving person, someone who will listen to the wants and needs of others and cater to them, to make the world a better place. If anyone wants to do the same, let that be their decision. Let this be my manifesto, then. The humanitarian's manifesto. A call for a re-examination of everyone's priorities and goals. I only hope that people will understand my words, and be able to take them to heart. I hope I have said the right things. As I say, I never meant for this to be a call for revolution, merely an expression of opinion. But if it motivates someone, it will have done some good. Perhaps someday, someone will write a better one. For now, it stands as it is.