People assume that the intellect is improved by attending university. Well, it all depends on where you go and what you study. If you attended Harvard and obtained a PhD then you have a fine brain. If you attended some small local college and majored in social ecology then you missed getting an education.
Guys who study engineering and computer science aren't particularly well educated, either. So, it is possible to attend university or college and remain a dolt.
1: You fail to define intellect, thus making your post very unclear. What is the definition from which you measure the improvement or atrophy of intellect? What are the building blocks of intellect? (nothing = static) Your post is like explaining the way to drive from A -> B without ever explaining where A is.
2: You claim location and what you study determine the ability to expand the intellect via education. This is of course all wrong, because you fail to see that there are many layers between the actual improvement of the intellect and outside stimuli. For example, individual ambition and the ability to really get into the underlying systems and logics of any subject is more important in the development of intellect than the name of the university.
Yet, "good" universities correlates with brighter students that follow the ideas in Debusseys point #2, so you can claim a correlation.
At the same time, correlation NEVER EQUALS CAUSE. This is very important. Therefore, you are wrong, you simply indicate a correlation that you claim as a cause. That is not logic, since correlation never equals cause.
3: You differentiate different subjects into groups of "intellect improving" and vice versa. Yet you give no reasons. As long as the student digs into the material, and see the logic behind it, intellect = improved. Engineering = you learn about logical systems and basic mathematical truths, which is one of the basic building blocks of intellect. Many people does not adopt the theory into their thinking, yet some do. And the last group will increase their intellect.
4: You claim that attending Harvard, and getting a Ph.D = intellect improving for any subject (since you never define certain subjects, it is logical to assume that you mean all subjects), yet later in your post, you claim that many subjects = not intellect improving.
Your post contains many holes. Please clarify.
PS: If you read Karl Popper, you must be an intelligent man. Please use your brains when writing posts.
