Colleges and universities traditionally offer two separate services to their students: theory based education, and employment skills training. Of course there are exceptions and sometimes both can be acquired from the same institution.

There is a debate underway, as referenced in the article by Allan Coyle, "Columnist incites debate on post-secondary investment": Bclocalnews.com, and the issue is, which institution provides a better return on investment. Of course in the article referenced, it relates entirely to immediate economic returns.

Personally, I feel as though the two are complementary to one another, and while universities may not provide sky high new graduate employment rates in positions relating to the graduate's field of study, they do provide students with the ability to hone skills such as critical thinking. And while employment for undergraduates in specific programs, for example...oh I don't know...arts, may not be immediately available, there are important societal positions filled by these graduates.

In addition, not all students are suited to all programs. Not all students can endure purely skills based training, without the ability to explore deeper theoretical work. Conversely, not all students can endure writing essyas and hours of reading every evening. Students tend to pursue what they are suited for, in terms of intellect, ability, emotion and life circumstances. Canadian society as a whole is also reflective of this; we cannot simply survive as "doers" or "thinkers", both add value, and whatever their tangible economic contributions are, whether current or future, they are certainly both valuable in their own regards.

So I agree with Allan Doyle, who says "so let's leave 'college versus university' out of the discussion. It's a gross simplification that won't always work." I would also like to expand by suggesting the debate return to, "education versus no education."

Tim Hordo