因此对上大学的价值和必要性进行讨论，即，没上大学一样可能成功，其代表就是bill.gates，Michle.Dell（这次没有提到中国的李嘉诚先生），而很多问题是有顷向性的，当然，不能说这种顷向性是主持人的观点，我的估计是：主持人认为世人中，很多人会这么想。
说这句话时，我不知道主持人陈伟鸿心里成功的标准是什么，但我想，这两人明显特征中，除了没上完大学，还有就是经济上很富有，另外就是有一定的影响力，在全球范围。当然，还会有其它共同特征（比如他们都是男的，都是American)，但我想，既然主持人说到世界首富，那么财务上的拥有肯定是一个核心因素。
说他们成功，我没什么异议，但如果我认为，爱因斯坦也很成功呢？如果说财富，那么巴菲特呢？再说李开复呢.....这样的例子实在太多了。他们都受过良好教育。所以我认为这里边有几个问题：
1、成功的标准有问题，不能是一个一维的指标。
2、逻辑上问题。就象北大校长说的那样，一个bill.gates成功了，没问题，推而广之说不用上大学就有问题了。
从逻辑上讲，你至少应当去研究：没上大学的人群的成功比例、上大学要群的成功比例，哪高更高？中国大学生占总人口比例看过两个数据，一个是3%,一个是5%.总之不超过10%.那么，剩下的90%是不是都成为bill.gates了？好象没有。相反，中国农民现在过得还很苦，这并不是他们想要的生活（如果是他们想要的，那也算成功了），如果他们有机会多接授一些教育，情况应该会好很多。
3、上大学是一种重要途径，但不是唯一途径。那些没有受过大学教育的成功人士，虽然大学没上，但他们学的东西可一点也不少，也就是说，不管上不上大学，学习都很重要，对于想成功的人来说（有不想成功的吗？）。只不过有的人通过上大学学习，有的人在生活和工作中学习。然而，大学是一个很好的学习的地方（不务正业的就不说了），从这个逻辑上讲，上过大学整体成功的概率会比较高，这个没有具体的统计数据（也不可能有），但凭直觉就可以知道。而如果将上学作为一种投资的话，规避风险，找成功机会高的难道不是投资者的一种理性选择？Therefore, the value and necessity of the University of discussion, that is, not the same university likely to be successful, his representative is bill.gates, Michle.Dell (no mention of this, China's Li Ka-shing), and there are a lot of problems ares sex, of course, can not be said that this is the moderator of sexual ares perspective, my estimate is: Moderator think that the people of the world, many people will think so.
Said that this remark, I do not know Moderator Chenweihong mind what is the criterion of success, but I think that two prominent characteristics, in addition to no end on the University, there is economically very rich, the other is to a certain extent influence in the global scope. Of course, but also there are other common characteristics (such as they are men, they are all American), but I would like to, since the moderator said that the world's richest country, then the owner of the financial core is definitely a factor.
Said they successful, and I no objection, but if I think that Einstein also very successful? If wealth, then Buffett? Kai-fu Lee say it ..... examples of this is too much. They are well-educated. So I think that while there are several issues here:
1, the success of standards, it is not a one-dimensional targets.
2, logic problems. As president of Beijing University said, a bill.gates successful, no problem, and by extension that no university there will be problems.
Logically speaking, you should at least study: Not on the success of the University of population ratio, at the University of proportion to the success of group, which a higher high? Chinese college students have seen the proportion of the total population two data, a 3%, a 5%. Sum up no more than 10 per cent. Then, and the remaining 90% is not all become bill.gates? It seems not. On the contrary, China's farmers are now also flies很苦, this is not the life they want (if they want, it would be a success), if they have the opportunity to delegate some more education, the situation should be much better.
3, the university is an important means, but not the only way. Those who do not have university-educated people who, although not on the university, but they can learn the things that are also quite a number, that is, not on whether universities, learning is very important to the success of the people (do not want success ?). Some people only learn through college, and some people in the life and work of the study. However, the university is a good learning place (not that the load), and from this logically, the university as a whole, the probability of success will be relatively high, there is no specific statistical data (it is impossible to have), but intuitive to know. If a school will be an investment in the case, avoid risks, the chances of success for high investor Is not a rational choice?
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考