I forgot them. All of them.

I literally left my apartment with my suitcase, my Chrome bag, laptop, DSLR, clothes, and everything I would need… except my books.

Why is that I can’t make the time in my life to sit down and enjoy some of the literally hundreds of books on my reading list? There’s so much knowledge there, and so much to learn, yet I constantly find myself consumed with something else. By the time the thought of reading a book enters my mind it’s often one or two A.M. and I’ll read about half a page before I fall asleep with the book on my lap.

Am I the only one with this problem? Here’s hoping I can start making more time for books in my life when I get back to D.C.

Illustration for the video was done by Cognitive Media, which looks to be an equally awesome organization.

To talk about college this way may sound élitist. It may even sound philistine, since the purpose of a liberal-arts education is to produce well-rounded citizens rather than productive workers. But perhaps it is more foolishly élitist to think that going to school until age 22 is necessary to being well-rounded, or to tell millions of kids that their future depends on performing a task that only a minority of them can actually accomplish.

Well, he’s right on that first point. It does sound élitist. It does sound philistine. But the sheer gumption of saying it’s élitist to encourage kids to get a college education? That’s absolute insanity.

The author seems to subscribe to the viewpoint that people are born with certain abilities. That some people are just destined for greatness, while others will be trapped in the lower-class culture of our society. He’s simply wrong.

I grew up in rural Kentucky. I come from an upper-middle class, pretty average family. I’ve been blessed–and a fair bit lucky–but one of the primary reasons I have been as successful as I’ve been is thanks to my education and my college experience so far, at American University.

And it’s not just me. I’ve seen friends from lower-class, lower-middle class, and even upper-class go from unsavory circumstances to college, and they’re achieving greatness as we speak. Will they be CEOs, Senators, Presidents or entrepreneurs? Not necessarily. But their advanced education is giving them the knowledge they need to keep pushing our country forward.

Let’s look at it from a macro-level. Look at the United States in comparison to Asian countries’ performance in math, statistics, engineering, and the sciences. We lag behind–sometimes by a significant margin. Sure we’ve got the economic advantage, the legacy of being the world’s largest superpower, and a fair bit of innovation under our belts, but who says that will last forever? And at the rate countries like China and India are growing, progressing, and, in many ways, catching up to us, shows that more advanced education is the only argument we should be making.

The bipartisanship on the need for education is one of the few bright spots of cooperation you can find in our government right now. Who in their right mind could argue against that?

Ponnuru is missing the point. Sure, there are some people in college right now who might not be able to handle it. But is the answer to just give up, an stop sending them to college altogether? Is the answer just to let them stop learning, to go work on the farm, to grab a job collecting garbage or clerking grocery stores? No, no, no, no and NO.

The solution to this problem is obvious. Ponnuru even says it flat out in his article: “We could probably increase the number of high school seniors who are ready to go to college — and likely to make it to graduation — if we made the K-12 system more academically rigorous.” But then he goes on to refute his own point, dismissively saying “college isn’t for everyone.”

College isn’t for everyone now because our high schools aren’t doing their job. College isn’t for everyone because our education system is up to par for the greatness of America. College isn’t for everyone because idiots like this are writing articles arguing against it, with absolutely zero rational, empirical, or substantiated points to base their argument on.