When I said this, I didn't know what the standard of success was in Chen Weihong's mind, but I felt that apart from not finishing college, these two people were relatively rich economically and had a certain influence on a global scale. Of course, there will be other characteristics (for example, they are all men and Americans), but I think since the host is talking about the richest man in the world, financial possession must be the core factor.
I don't object to saying that they are successful, but what if I think Einstein is also successful? If wealth, what about Buffett? Let's talk about Kai-Fu Lee ... There are too many such examples. They are all well educated. So I think there are several questions here:
1. There is something wrong with the success criteria, and it cannot be a one-dimensional indicator.
2. Logical problems. As the president of Peking University said, a Bill Gates succeeded, no problem, and by extension, there were problems without going to college.
Logically speaking, you should at least study: which is the higher success rate of people who have never attended college or those who have attended college? There have been two figures about the proportion of college students in the total population of China, one is 3% and the other is 5%. In short, it shall not exceed 10%. So, did the remaining 90% become Bill Gates? I don't think so. On the contrary, farmers in China are still living a hard life, which is not what they want (if they want it, they will be successful). If they had the opportunity to receive more education, the situation would be much better.
Going to college is an important way, but not the only way. Those successful people who don't have a college degree have learned a lot, although they didn't go to college. That is to say, whether they go to college or not, learning is very important. For those who want to succeed (do you want to succeed? )。 It's just that some people study by going to college, while others study in life and work. However, college is a good place to study (not to mention those who are not doing their jobs). Logically speaking, the overall success probability of the university will be higher. There are no specific statistics (and it is impossible to have them), but you can know by intuition. And if going to school is an investment, isn't it a rational choice for investors to avoid risks and look for opportunities with high chances of success? Therefore, to discuss the value and necessity of universities, that is, different universities may succeed, and his representatives are Bill Gates and Michelle. Dell (not to mention this, Li Ka-shing of China) also has many questions about the nature of war. Of course, it can't be said that this is the moderator's view of war. My estimation is that the moderator thinks that people all over the world will think so.
Speaking of this sentence, I don't know what the standard of success is in Chen Weihong's mind, but I think two outstanding characteristics, besides not finishing college, are very rich economically, and the other is that they have certain influence on a global scale. Of course, there are other common characteristics (for example, they are all men and they are all Americans), but I think since the host said that the richest country in the world, the owner of the financial core must be a factor.
I have no objection to saying that they succeeded, but what if I think Einstein is also successful? If wealth, what about Buffett? Kai-fu Lee said ... There are too many such examples. They are well educated. So I think that although there are several problems here:
1, the criterion of success, is not a one-dimensional goal.
2, logical problems. As President Peking University said, Bill Gates succeeded, and there was no problem. By extension, no university would have problems.
Logically speaking, you should at least study: which is higher, regardless of the proportion of successful people in universities or the proportion of successful people in universities? There are two figures for the proportion of college students in the total population in China, one is 3% and the other is 5%. The total does not exceed 10%. So, isn't the remaining 90% Bill Gates? I don't think so In contrast, farmers in China are miserable now. This is not the life they want (if they want it, it will be successful). If they have the opportunity to receive more education, the situation should be much better.
3. University is an important means, but it is not the only way. Those who have no college education can learn a lot, although they can't go to college. That is to say, if they can't go to college, learning is very important for people's success (don't you want to succeed? Some people only study through college, while others study in life and work. However, the university is a good place to study (not to say the load). Logically speaking, the university as a whole will have a high probability of success, and there is no specific statistical data (and it is impossible to have it), but it is intuitive to know. If a school uses an investment to avoid risks, isn't it a rational choice for investors with high chances of success?