[HN Gopher] More students are turning away from college and towa... ___________________________________________________________________ More students are turning away from college and toward apprenticeships Author : lxm Score : 436 points Date : 2023-03-18 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com) | Forestessential wrote: | most colleges are turning away from making shining stars and | instead seeking to get the mass in and out, to their respective | homes. Scaled grading is so the school can reliably pass | students. The credential is literally worth less. | passwordoops wrote: | As a PhD analytical chemist, about 15 years past graduation I now | regret just not becoming a plumber in my early 20s. Basically the | same skill set, but the tubes are wider. Also would have been | higher life time pay, at least to this point and possibly into | retirement | balderdash wrote: | Lol - I have a derivative thought in that I should have just | joined my local police department (no desire to be a police | officer, but six figure pay, retirement in my 40's with huge | pension/healthcare benefits, and a stressful day is someone's | mom giving you a hard time at the pharmacy lunch counter about | giving their kid a speeding ticket) | ivan_ah wrote: | https://archive.is/bAdmO | oldstrangers wrote: | Sounds great until you run into half the open jobs on LinkedIn | requiring a degree. Very depressing. | celu wrote: | [dead] | pclmulqdq wrote: | College seems to have ~3 uses from students' perspectives: | | 1. A trade school for technical professionals who actually _need_ | specialist education (scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, | etc.) | | 2. A finishing school for the elite | | 3. A blood sports arena for the brilliant to complete for | professorships (almost all of whom will lose and be saddled with | 6 figures of debt and 7 figures of opportunity cost) | | A lot of people have been tricked into going to general education | and liberal arts college programs (the finishing school parts) | without the money to pay in full under the guise of "becoming a | lifelong learner" or something, and this completely cripples them | in the future when they could otherwise have had great careers in | fields that don't truly need the education you get from a | college. | | It's good that students are turning away now. The market is | correcting itself. | suzzer99 wrote: | I'm an engineer now, but am still very glad I had a liberal | arts undergrad. | morpheuskafka wrote: | > fields that don't truly need the education | | Even if that's true, isn't part of the problem that a lot of | those office jobs that don't absolutely need the knowledge | still expect a bachelor's degree? Even if it was nothing more | than "finishing school," you're going to have a hard time | finding a job in HR, sales, etc. without college. | mtrower wrote: | What is meant by finishing school in this thread? I have a | feeling this is not the definition being used | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finishing_school | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | That's exactly what it's referring to, but in a derogatory | way, and more gender-neutral. I.e., a place that teaches | people how to act professional-class, how to have the | correct opinions and prejudices, the correct conditioned | responses, the correct verbal tics, and so on. | pclmulqdq wrote: | You are today, but that's because it is a signaling mechanism | that you are a reasonably hard worker and willing to put up | with bullshit. Also because practically everyone worth hiring | has one. | | This is not a stable equilibrium, though, when you couple it | with the tremendous rise in prices. | m463 wrote: | I don't think going to college can be easily summed up (and | dismissed) with a numbered list of items. Sort of like saying | marriage is just to have kids, get a tax benefit, and save on | rent. | [deleted] | [deleted] | thiagoharry wrote: | I do not think that what society needs is equal what the market | needs. People with critical knowledge about society, | philosophy, people that could question how good is the market | deciding everything are not interesting to the market, but it | is interesting to the society. Without publicly funded | education, however, everything boils down to what the market | decides. | pjlegato wrote: | _With_ publicly funded education, however, everything boils | down to what some small group of unelected bureaucrats | decide. That is arguably much worse. | | It's also worth noting that most countries with totally free | higher education emphatically do NOT allow just anyone to go | study any major they like at taxpayer expense. Subjects that | have few jobs waiting at the other end are strictly gated by | intensely difficult entrance exams designed to weed out all | but a small number of students, so that nobody wastes their | time getting a degree in a topic where it is unlikely they | can ever find employment. | klyrs wrote: | > 3. A blood sports arena for the brilliant to complete for | professorships (almost all of whom will lose and be saddled | with 6 figures of debt and 7 figures of opportunity cost) | | As somebody with a PhD, I say ho hum. I only took on 5 figures | of debt, after quitting tech after the "dot com bubble." I had | been bored out of my skull with the monotony and lack of | intellectual challenge. But 7 figures of opportunity cost? | Maybe even more, if I had joined the right startup. But I moved | from low tech to high tech, using my degree in industry. Money | is nice, sure, and can solve some problems in life. But real | value is satisfaction. It doesn't have a price tag. There isn't | a number of digits that would make me reconsider my choice. | | If your primary measure of success is wealth, then university | has never been the answer. | credit_guy wrote: | 0. A four-year recruitment and placement agency. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I think part of the challenge and problem is that college has | come to be synonymous with high tier universities. | | There's a ton of non monetary rewards that can be had cheaply | from learning, whether it is art, history, or any of the non | technical professions. This value can be had for pennies on the | dollar at community colleges without locking oneself into a | 4-year degree track. You can ignore it GEs and simply take the | classes you want to learn. You don't have to front load | education into your early twenties and then stop completely | once you are done. | 331c8c71 wrote: | > almost all of whom will lose and be saddled with 6 figures of | debt and 7 figures of opportunity cost | | Not quite so for immigrants who are likely prevalent (or close) | in grad schools. | [deleted] | dahart wrote: | This pessimistic view doesn't seem that well supported by the | data. In the US, we're pushing nearly 40% of bachelor's degree | attainment, which is far broader a population than you suggest. | There's also the problem that degree holders earn an _average_ | of 2x more than non-degree holders. I was very surprised by | this! The St. Louis Fed published this statistic in an article | arguing that the wealth advantage of college was waning, but it | kinda backfired on me when I looked at their absolute numbers. | The fact that many many many good jobs require a degree and | that earnings are statistically higher for people with degrees, | I speculate, is driving college rates far more than all three | reasons you proposed, combined... from a students' perspective. | jletienne wrote: | it's unclear if the causation here is having a degree. but it | is correlated to a very large degree | dahart wrote: | This has been quite widely studied, actually. Many papers | conclude that it's a mix of causation, there is | (unsurprisingly) some amount of actual learning of skills | in college, and also (unsurprisingly) some amount of | credentialism in the job market. | | What does it matter though? Parent was presuming to argue | from a students' perspective. The amount of relative | causation might be pretty irrelevant to a student who just | wants to know what do to to maximize their chances of | having a decent career. From a student's perspective, lack | of causation might even be a stronger reason than | otherwise, it potentially means they can enjoy a more | lucrative career with less work. | [deleted] | [deleted] | [deleted] | WanderPanda wrote: | 4. Time spent outside the rat race without leaving a hole in | your cv | varunjain99 wrote: | I'd also add | | 4) A social / networking experience. As an adult, rarely will | you interact so often with so many people of your age. | | 5. A signaling mechanism. I have X credentials so give me job | Y. This is far from ideal because the signal can be noisy. But | it is a data point. It's similar to how physics PhD's are | targeted for quant finance roles - they've signaled they can | solve hard problems! | seanalltogether wrote: | I know so many people who don't keep in contact with high | school friends, but still meet up with college friends from | time to time. There's just something special about throwing a | bunch of people of the same age into this melting pot _that | they chose to be thrown in to_ that creates these social | networks that last a lifetime. Military friendships also seem | to mirror this same effect | hgsgm wrote: | 4) if everyone wasn't locked up in college, they would meet | other young adults in their neighborhood and social/hobby | clubs and entertainment venues | | 5) in the modern day that can solved by testing regimes. A | self-educated quant could take an online qualifying test, and | in-person final exam, to get a job in finance. | quags wrote: | I dropped out of college after 2 years about 20 years ago. | I have never come across the same social interaction since | then. The value of education on some degrees is certainly | over stated , and there are areas that can be self taught. | There is a lack of social learning though that doesn't come | outside of education and school. | cortesoft wrote: | I disagree with your testing theory. The signal from a | degree isn't just that you know the content, but that you | can consistently work towards a goal over many years, | navigating a large organization with lots of arbitrary | rules, and willingness to do assigned work that may serve | no purpose. | | You can't test to show that ability. | tester756 wrote: | In my experience - not really. | | I know a lot of people around my age and only 1 person is | working in my industry. | BolexNOLA wrote: | But tons of people aren't locked up in college and aren't | meeting people in their area. They've also had their entire | middle and high school years to do it. If they didn't take | advantage of it then, it's unlikely they'll take advantage | of it at 18-21. | | I think we are also forgetting that it is good for people | to get out of their local bubble and get other | perspectives/experiences. | bee_rider wrote: | 4) is the main thing for 4 year, in person colleges, I think. | You can learn anything online. Credentials are nice but you | can get pretty good credentials doing 2 years at a community | college and finishing up at a state university. But meeting a | bunch of ambitious people your age at the same point in their | career is pretty valuable I think. At least it is an | opportunity to roll the dice on meeting your startup crew. | azinman2 wrote: | It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to far | more depth of thought. It also builds professional networks. If | a person is smart enough to receive it, more education is | almost always good. | | Of course money is a factor, and schools have gotten insanely | expensive. I'm glad to hear that more people are finding | alternative routes - it shouldn't be that everyone needs | college because quite frankly many career paths don't require | it and many aren't smart enough for it (and thus the debt will | be crushing). | | But I wouldn't dismiss its value in being taught how to think. | I wish there was a bigger focus in physics, math, and | philosophy for those who didn't know what to do - learn one of | those and you can do just about anything. | thomastjeffery wrote: | College/University does not have a monopoly on | intellectualism or networking. | | There is no guarantee that attending a college or university | will help you develop _more_ than you would outside that | setting. There is, however, a guaranteed cost; and that cost | can be debilitating. | azinman2 wrote: | You're right. It's not a guarantee. But it's a situation | where it's served to you on a platter. If you're not | capable of receiving it on a platter, it's doubtful you'll | get it on your own. | | Not everyone is capable of getting it in either scenario - | as such as I said I'm glad more vocational opportunities | are becoming in vogue again. Let's just hope these | vocations last another 20-30 years. | Master_Odin wrote: | I think a number of hands on vocational jobs will last | longer than quite a few white collar jobs. The robotics | necessary for those jobs is quite far behind where we are | with the necessary software. | juve1996 wrote: | > There is no guarantee that attending a college or | university will help you develop more than you would | outside that setting. There is, however, a guaranteed cost; | and that cost can be debilitating. | | Two things - that guaranteed cost CAN be debilitating. It | also might not be. There are plenty of cheaper options | available for higher education. And, in general, people | with higher education make more money overall. | bumby wrote: | > _more education is almost always good_ | | Yes, but we also need to be cognizant of the opportunity | costs: 4 years of gainful, productive employment minus | educational debt. | | I don't think university has a monopoly on education any | longer. But they still maintain one on accreditation. As a | society we need to take a hard look at what credentials | certain degrees really need. | sircastor wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. | | I think this is one of the more valuable components of | attending university - in part just because it exposes one to | more people, from more diverse backgrounds. It encourages you | to see the world from more than one perspective, and to (I | hope) be able to understand and be more compassionate about | others. | | There is a segment of people (in the US at least) that don't | want kids to go to college for exactly this reason - they | don't want their kids, or other young people to be exposed to | or trained in critical thinking and broad perspectives. | nonethewiser wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought | | It doesn't uniquely do this. You don't need college to have | intellectual conversations or be exposed to new ideas. | comfypotato wrote: | This has changed over time. Probably simply because of the | internet. It used to be harder to expose yourself to the | variety of ideas and perspective that college did. | thaw13579 wrote: | It's hard to find opportunities for this outside college. | Most people are not interested in intellectual talk, so the | question is how to meet like-minded folks? I can't seem to | find better alternatives to universities, for both number | and diversity of opportunities. Book clubs seem like the | best option but are often too narrowly focused on | literature. | castella wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. | | As a (not so) recent grad from a top public university in the | US - for STEM fields, absolutely. But from my exposure to the | humanities and liberal arts side of the campus, be it gen ed | classes or just day-to-day interactions with those students, | it was far more like a brainwashing factory designed to churn | out professional activists. Those classes were far more about | rote memorization and regurgitation of the professor's | political opinions than any sort of critical thinking; | diverge from that "Overton window" and your grades will | suffer. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _more education is almost always good_ | | There is a lot of nonsense credentialing in America. My most | rewarding liberal arts classes in college were electives. | Scratch that: the only liberal arts classes I took that had | merit were electives. The reading lists were fun. But the | discussion, assignments and evaluation stupid to the point | that I spent years thinking up clever quips to the absurdity | of it all. | Varqu wrote: | I would argue that it nowadays teaches more herd-behavior and | political correctness than depth of thought (example: last | Stanford Law dean case) | palijer wrote: | >It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to far | more depth of thought. | | This is a thing that happens to folks who attend school, but | I don't think it is the school that causes this to happen. I | think this effect is bound to happen to any young person who | moves away from their home to live independently for the | first time with a thousand other folks who are doing the same | thing. | | Just moving to a large city and working when you are young is | enough to "grow the intellectual soul". Taking out loans and | paying for lessons I don't think is a critical part of that | development. | juve1996 wrote: | But not everyone moves far away to go to school and not all | schools are in the big city. In fact, schools now have | evolved closer to daycares with the amount of money being | poured into dining halls and fitness centers. | | > Just moving to a large city and working when you are | young is enough to "grow the intellectual soul". Taking out | loans and paying for lessons I don't think is a critical | part of that development. | | Eh. Plenty of people migrate. That doesn't make them | educated, necessarily. | ryeguy_24 wrote: | Everyone says that it teaches you how to think but I've never | heard of a good reason why. I remember difficult classes but | I don't remember any special sauce that made me think | differently than I did in high school. I'm not saying that I | don't believe that it teaches you this, I just have never | heard more reasoning than the surface statement. Does anyone | have any examples or theories of this? | zoogeny wrote: | Your post makes me consider what other avenues to achieve the | growth of intellectual souls and exposure to depth of thought | could exist other than paid-for highly-structured | institutions. | | I think people wax poetically about their own experiences | without really considering the experiences of others. We've | had free public libraries for centuries now. We've had a | pretty open Internet for decades. There is literally nothing | stopping a 20 year old human who lives in Western society | from growing their intellectual soul through learning. | | For a lot of young kids, school is more like a prison than an | intellectual garden. Yet a certain kind of thinking keeps | these institutions mandated with the good intention of | growing souls. | | My own opinion is that the current means is utterly failing | at generating the desired ends. As the antiquated expression | goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it | drink. | morelisp wrote: | > We've had free public libraries for centuries now. | | Not even a century and a half, really. The first Carnegie | library was opened in 1883, for example. | zoogeny wrote: | I mean, pedantry aside this is such an easy question that | even Google can find a result. [1] | | According to that link: The Darby Free Library in Darby, | Pennsylvania, is "America's oldest public library, in | continuous service since 1743." | | But really, without going too off topic, why would you | even bother to try to correct a statement that is used | for effect? Are you trying to suggest that 150 years vs | "centuries" is a relevant distinction for a point made | about college-aged knowledge seekers? Are you interested | in showing you have the trivial fact on hand for when the | first Carnegie library was formed? | | I'm open to being corrected but sometimes I just have to | shake my head. Not only was your attempt to correct | irrelevant, it is factually off base. | | 1. https://www.sturgislibrary.org/oldest-library/ | morelisp wrote: | I contend that "We have had free public libraries" is not | a statement about the mere existence of _a_ public | library _somewhere_ , but rather and especially in the | context of this discussion a claim about how widely | available resources for self-education are. And that's | _firmly_ the latter half of the 19th century, following | efforts of people like Buckingham, Edwards, and Carnegie. | And these are still not even close to universally | accessible - there can be plenty stopping "a 20 year old | human who lives in Western society" from accessing them. | | So, no, not pedantry - just asking that you genuinely | consider the experiences of others before waxing poetic | about some irrelevant historicism. Perhaps unguided | education is today not as accessible for everyone as it | was for you, for many reasons. | | (p.s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Free_Library | says it was a subscription library until 1898. Maybe also | Google, which seems to be what you meant by "the open | internet", is not that great a resource either?) | zoogeny wrote: | > Perhaps unguided education is today not as accessible | for everyone as it was for you, for many reasons. | | That is fair, I am too liberal with my hyperbole and so | I'll try to be a bit more clear. It seems unlikely to me | that an individual that has access to a guided university | education does not also have access to freely available | educational resources either online or in public | libraries. That is, I do not believe that a youth today | that desires to "grow an intellectual soul" has the | single recourse to enroll in the structured environments | of universities. | | I have no idea how you clarifying or arguing over the | precise duration of the availability of public libraries | contributes to that discussion. | morelisp wrote: | This statement: | | _There is literally nothing stopping a 20 year old human | who lives in Western society from growing their | intellectual soul through learning._ | | Is _wildly_ different than: | | _I do not believe that a youth today that desires to | "grow an intellectual soul" has the single recourse to | enroll in the structured environments of universities._ | | > I have no idea how you clarifying or arguing over the | precise duration of the availability of public libraries | contributes to that discussion. | | Sure, when you totally change what you're saying, it's | not relevant anymore. | thomastjeffery wrote: | What a university _can_ provide is direction: an explicit | decision about the _order_ concepts are learned, and the | _perspective_ each concept is approached from. | | That can be really useful, especially when professors have | enough free time to spend with individual students. | | It can also be really detrimental: every person has a | unique education history that determines what order and | perspectives are most optimal to their learning. | | The problem I see is that university _is_ structure. The | entire design is intended to be predetermined and | inflexible. Edge cases are handled by bringing a student | "back on track", assuming that track to be the best | learning approach for every student. | | Most of the substance of "liberal arts" is exactly what a | person needs to learn to progress _out_ of this system. The | irony of a successful university experience is that the | more successful it is at teaching you, the sooner you can | walk away and continue learning on your own. | Izkata wrote: | > What a university can provide is direction: an explicit | decision about the order concepts are learned, and the | perspective each concept is approached from. | | Also just touching on "these things exist", converting | unknown unknowns into known unknowns. That's the single | biggest thing I got from my degree (having already been | programming for years before), that nowadays I'm | occasionally reminded of in a relevant context and can | now dig deeper into. | [deleted] | Dudeman112 wrote: | >There is literally nothing stopping a 20 year old human | who lives in Western society from growing their | intellectual soul through learning | | Except for humans in general being utterly _shite_ at | pursuing learning without guidance or an immediate goal, | both in regards to the learning effectiveness (i.e. how | much you learn per amount of time or effort), and having | the discipline to keep the grind | | Most people are not, in fact, capable of just going to a | library (or using the internet) every day and deeply | learning a subject. They need an external force to actually | keep grinding, even if they _do_ want to do it by | themselves | the_only_law wrote: | Also learning is more than just reading a whole lot. Not | every field or subject is software development where the | tools you need to actually _do_ are so easily accessible. | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | I hear it used to be that there was a culture of serious | working-class learning in England. Like, the barbers in the | shop would pay some street-kid to read them books -- there | was no TV -- while they cut hair. And the cabbie could get | into a conversation about Kant or something with his | passenger. Maybe just to mess with them, but still. | revelio wrote: | The surprisingly intellectual cabbie is practically a | trope. They get to talk to a lot of different people so | can end up learning all sorts of things you wouldn't | expect. | ryan93 wrote: | Id be surprised if 5% of college students "grow their souls" | weirdly clueless thing to write. Not hard to find out that | most people get business, psych and econ degrees. And even | english or history majors half ass it just to get through. | rayiner wrote: | > it also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought | | This illogical trope is responsible for so much suffering, | being responsible for driving millions of people to waste | their time and money pursuing useless college educations. | anonuser123456 wrote: | >It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to far | more depth of thought. | | I am skeptical of this claim. In my experience, it just | enshrines a different set of beliefs into students rather | than new paradigms of critical thinking. | azinman2 wrote: | Then I don't think where you went to school did a very good | job of educating, or I'd suggest you didn't pick up on what | was being put down. For it to not provide critical thinking | and/or depth of knowledge in a subject is a failed mission. | mtrower wrote: | If so many people are reporting this experience, it may | be time to re-evaluate the current state of education. | juve1996 wrote: | I've found most people bemoaning the "indoctrination" from | college are just typically upset other belief systems are | being taught. | gersh wrote: | Are modern colleges actually succeeding: 1) Exposing people | to depth of thought 2) Teach people how to think | | Maybe, at one time they did, and maybe some schools still do, | but it doesn't seem like most modern colleges are really | doing this very well. | AlchemistCamp wrote: | > If a person is smart enough to receive it, more education | is almost always good. | | Are you speaking narrowly of credential-granting schools or | do you actually mean education here? | Consultant32452 wrote: | >It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to far | more depth of thought. | | This is a thing that people say, but I've never seen it | happen. To the extent that people are exposed to depth of | thought or new ideas, the people interested would have found | those things faster, cheaper, and more frequently if they | avoided the rat race parts of university programs. | | It's similar to the thought that university degrees help | people economically, but that is rarely the case. We've spent | many human generations trying to figure out how to move the | needle and it's mostly IQ + big 5 personality + luck. The | people that COULD have gotten into Harvard but chose to go | elsewhere wind up with the same outcomes as the people who DO | go to Harvard. | dmonitor wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. | | Have you even seen a college classroom in the last decade? | The STEM classes absolutely have dedicated learners, but most | of the people in those other classes can barely write their | name on the corner of the page and the classes are designed | to cater to their abilities because if they flunk out, they | don't pay next years tuition. | kneebonian wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. | | "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years | you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're | going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties | in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand | on a fuckin' education you could have got for a dollar fifty | in late charges at the public library!" - Good will Hunting | | > It also builds professional networks. | | Wait so is college about making money or about growing the | soul, because you just said it was about growing the soul but | now it's about hobnobbing with people's whose only | qualification was the ability to pay money to go to college | sounds shallow. | | > If a person is smart enough to receive it, more education | is almost always good. | | If colleges were still about educating I might agree with you | but we are a long way from colleges being about educating | people. At this points it's simply a social signal. | azinman2 wrote: | Few will spend a huge amount of time self educating, and | even fewer can read the books and understand what to | extract from it without guidance. That's the whole point of | having a subject matter expert design and teach a | curriculum. If you don't value that, then in your world we | should abolish high schools and earlier as well. If you | look at societies where people don't go to school versus | where people do, the results are quite different for | society. The evidence speaks for itself. | | > Wait so is college about making money or about growing | the soul, because you just said it was about growing the | soul but now it's about hobnobbing with people's whose only | qualification was the ability to pay money to go to college | sounds shallow. | | There can be multiple benefits simultaneously at different | levels. | | If whatever college you're attending is only creating a | social signal and not meaningfully educating, then that | school lose its accreditation. | mtrower wrote: | So wait, if a person fails to benefit from college, it's | their own fault for not taking what was "handed to them | on a platter" (as you mention in another of your posts" | --- but if they fail to self-educate, it's only natural | and thus a problem of not going to college? | klooney wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. It also builds professional | networks. If a person is smart enough to receive it, more | education is almost always good. | | That's the "finishing school for the elite" function. If you | have to ask if you can afford that, you cannot. | jackmott wrote: | [dead] | lr4444lr wrote: | _If a person is smart enough to receive it_ | | And this can't be the case, at least not in the sense that | colleges can offer education at the caliber they once were | when only educating 25-30% of the population 70+ years ago. | Academic ability, like most other traits, exists on something | close to a normal distribution. Not to mention the failings | of the secondary education system feeding into it. | marcosdumay wrote: | That's #2 on the GP. At least if the college is as expensive | as the US ones are, only the elite can get a positive value | from those things. | stainablesteel wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls, exposing people to | far more depth of thought. It also builds professional | networks. If a person is smart enough to receive it, more | education is almost always good. | | oh are we talking about youtube? i love youtube | muyuu wrote: | out of all the reasons, IMO that is most anachronistic given | the way that both Universities and society at large have | changed away from these dynamics - and given also that the | need for that personal access has also decreased dramatically | over the last few decades | NathanNgata wrote: | > It also grows the intellectual souls | | maybe only a byproduct, it's more of a means to an end | system. people are at the universities they are in because | going to college still means something to the job market as | opposed to learning everything else where. The people who | really grow there 'intellectual souls' are those who would | grow it regardless of environment/circumstance. | | while I do believe it is a great thing for people to desire | to advance themselves intellectually I don't believe it | should cost as much as it does. It's ridiculous. | | > If a person is smart enough to receive it + many aren't | smart enough for it | | the benefits of becoming educated in its most fundamental | sense don't vary with intellectual ability. | | the way educational institutions are currently structured is | one of many ways of educating people, so the question becomes | whether that way of educating is optimal for an individual. | | ---- (opinion) | | universities should be purely for the pursuit of knowledge | and shouldn't be there to provide relevancy to the job | market. That should be the job of systems specializing in | providing pathways to certain job market sectors. | | currently universities conflate the two which has lead to | most of the problems they have been ascribed with today | phpisthebest wrote: | I think you have conflated college with education. One can | get education, build professional networks, etc with out | college and importantly one can go to college complete a | degree program while receiving zero education. | | many (most) Colleges is more of a social guild than it is an | educational ventures | azinman2 wrote: | Very few on their own would get anywhere close to what a | college gives you in terms of an education. Particularly in | ways that are far broader than what you'd do | professionally. | | Keep in mind college is 4 years of education on a daily | basis. | rufus_foreman wrote: | "According to one survey conducted by the National Survey | of Student Engagement, most college students spend an | average of 10-13 hours/week studying, or less than 2 | hours/day" | | "A recent study showed that college students spend | between 8 to 10 hours a day using a cell phone. Every | day." | | I agree with the parent comment. You have conflated | college with education. | phpisthebest wrote: | >>4 years of education on a daily basis. | | Is it? Really??? For all degrees and all programs.. | | that is the claim... but I just do not see that manifest | in reality. | | Seem you have a very inflated view of the programs... | just how much debt are you attempting to justify? | Dudeman112 wrote: | >Seem you have a very inflated view of the programs... | just how much debt are you attempting to justify? | | I agree with them and I had 0 debt. Making higher | education free was one of the few things I think the | government back home actually didn't drop the ball on | | Apparently it's done wonders for a bunch of industries | phpisthebest wrote: | Well like with many things. Context matters. here we are | talking about the dysfunctional schooling system of the | US. Other nations have different style of education that | may be actual education. | | There are also aspects and some intuitions in the US | worth it. But they are few and far between, and becoming | more rare as the institutions in the US move away from | actual education, and more towards political based goals | psyklic wrote: | I for one didn't know the political views of my | professors -- it simply never came up. | | That said, college students are adults and can be exposed | to different viewpoints without worry. IMO students are | influenced politically vastly more by fellow students | than professors. | azinman2 wrote: | I carry zero educational debt. | | How do you not see that manifest in reality? What school | doesn't have classes 5 days a week that people are | taking, or otherwise expected to be somehow participating | in an activity related to education? Sounds like a school | that should lose its accreditation. | 7thaccount wrote: | Agree with you here. I typically had at least 2 classes a | day and spent most of the time outside of class studying | or doing homework. It was easily more than 40 hours/week. | That was for an engineering degree though. Friends in | other programs (e.g. business, kinesiology...etc) had to | spend much less time on homework and studying, but even | they were learning daily. | phpisthebest wrote: | I have known alot of students, in many programs. On | average I say students have classes 2 - 3 days a week, | with 2 classes per day... | | I know more than a few students attending top rated | public universities. | | According to one survey conducted by the National Survey | of Student Engagement, most college students spend an | average of 10-13 hours/week studying, or less than 2 | hours/day and less than half of what is expected. Only | about 11% of students spend more than 25 hours/week on | schoolwork. [1] | | a "Full time" course load is 15 credit hours, which is | about 5 classes.. a student taking five 3-credit classes | spends 15 hours each week in class.. | | In the past I have run college level internship programs, | both for credit, and critically for this discussion not | for credit (meaning no affiliation with the schools). I | have had no problems scheduling students work around | their course schedule, for which they normally have 2 or | 3 open days for work. | | [1] https://www.collegiateparent.com/academics/student- | study-tim... | lotsofpulp wrote: | >Keep in mind college is 4 years of education on a daily | basis. | | For some, but for most, I bet it is a lot less. There are | entire degrees (and schools) designed to require little | more than for people to show up somewhere a few times per | week. | azinman2 wrote: | What degrees and which schools? | snerbles wrote: | In the US, full-time minimum is typically 12 semester | hours (credits) - that is, 12 hours in the classroom per | week. In practice students often take 12-18 credits, and | are considered overloaded at 20+ hours - some | institutions require approval to exceed a certain | enrollment. | | I had multiple semesters while attending a California | State University campus where my classes stacked up on | Monday-Wednesday-Friday, and depending on lab schedules | I'd wind up having Tuesdays and/or Thursdays "off", | usually taken up by part-time work or projects. Most of | my classmates in the ECE department spent their spare | days in a similar fashion. | | So, no, I was not attending class on a "daily basis". And | personally, I've learned far more from professional | development, personal projects and self-teaching than I | ever did in the coursework for my engineering degree. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Business/psychology/criminal justice/communications | degrees are generally considered the go to for easy | degrees where you just want the status of having a | Bachelors degree. | | For schools, any smaller private school charging $70k per | year that is not in the top 10 or 20 probably fits the | bill. They have a license to give rich foreigners a way | to buy into the US, and I doubt rigorous education is | their priority. | mfer wrote: | > But I wouldn't dismiss its value in being taught how to | think. | | Few universities teach how to think. Most teach what to | think. Critical thinking, reasoning through ideas and | concepts, and research are often lacking. | | > I wish there was a bigger focus in physics, math, and | philosophy for those who didn't know what to do | | I don't buy that. You can't by a psychiatrist. You can't be a | medical doctor or nutritionist. There are a lot of useful | things in this word, that we collectively need, you can't do | with those. | | But, I do think teaching philosophy would be useful. That | involves learning how to think things through which isn't, | for the most part, taught. | | > If a person is smart enough to receive it, more education | is almost always good. | | There is an error in reasoning right here. The implication | from the context is that you need to go to a college or | university to be more educated. That's not true. It's also a | complex question to ask, what level of education on what does | who need? | sidlls wrote: | The context within the social and economic structure of | society matters, too. Very few _good quality_ careers are | accessible for the self-taught individual. | mfer wrote: | Who defines good quality? | | Is this compensation? Is this satisfaction with what you | do? Is this ability to pay your bills and save enough? | How much does one need (what's enough)? | | This is all complicated and we tend to focus on | compensation. That's why so many people stay in jobs for | the pay while they hate the work. | | There are lots of good quality jobs out there if you | expand your definition beyond "highest compensation". I | know people who switched and were much happier in trades. | They felt far more satisfied, could daily see their | accomplishment, and meet their bills (and then some). | | Where did you get your view on good quality careers from? | azinman2 wrote: | MDs require more school on top of college; their major is | often unrelated except they have to take pre-med classes. | Often times people will go back to a community college or | some other schooling option for those classes if they | decide they want to go down that route. So you absolutely | can be any of those majors and change your position later. | Far better than say a communications major, which with | psychology are the two main majors for people who are in | college but don't know what to focus on. | | You can self-educate but very, very few have the capacity | to get anywhere near what you'd get from a dedicated | professional walking you through a curriculum in a context | where you're dedicating 4 years to the endeavor. | | Of course not everyone "needs" to be more educated to have | a functional life, but society is much better off when more | of the public is educated. You can look around the world at | the varying results of that, and it's consequences. | mfer wrote: | > society is much better off when more of the public is | educated. | | To what extent of educated? What do you mean by educated? | A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. | It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think | is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people | better off for learning them? | | For those who want to think deeply, are modern colleges a | place that allow for that? I know PhDs who no longer | teach because there is a lack of intellectualism and too | much indoctrination. | | A dedicated professor telling me what to think (their | ideas) rather than teaching me how to think and navigate | the space well... for general things... may not be so | useful to society. | azinman2 wrote: | > A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep | thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what | to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are | people better off for learning them? | | Yes because what it would be replaced with is even worse | and likely instantly falls apart under a modicum of | critical thinking. | mtrower wrote: | That's just indoctrination. Great I guess if you agree | with the brainwashing. Not so great if you're on the | other side. | psyklic wrote: | It's "indoctrination" to point out arguments that fall | apart under a modicum of critical thinking? | | You could easily argue that education involves learning | to construct solid arguments that do not fall apart. | Dudeman112 wrote: | Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and | "indoctrination". For _mysterious_ reasons we only care | about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or | almost adults | | People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply | understand and verify every part by themselves before | moving on | | Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never | moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch | of middle school | waboremo wrote: | Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones | that would thrive in a proper high education system. | Unfortunately, we're turning them away for various | reasons (financial, lack of flexibility, etc) and filling | rooms full of people who are there just because they were | told to be there. It's quite horrendous, people in their | 3+ years and they're still just going through the motions | for the paper. | | If you're not there to network and find a job, you're the | odd one out. This idea of treating these institutions as | places for continual higher learning is just not the | norm. | | It's an interesting predicament, more education for | everyone is better, yet our designation of | colleges/universities as the "last" required tier has | stunted many people in many ways. | mtrower wrote: | > Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones | that would thrive in a proper high education system. | | That might depend on what you define as 'proper'. These | environments are typically tailored toward a certain | median individual and if you don't fit that median (above | or below), you aren't going to have a good time. In my | own experience, I can generally self-educate far better | than what I've found in any traditional educational | environment available* to me. I just can't deal with the | snail's pace of concept introduction, the shallowness of | concept exploration, etc. Everything moves so slow and I | just tune it out. | | * What I've seen of MIT's open courseware appeared | interesting and well-paced to me, but that's not a route | that was ever available to me. | [deleted] | mtrower wrote: | > a dedicated professional walking you through a | curriculum in a context where you're dedicating 4 years | to the endeavor. | | Sounds nice. What I've _actually_ seen is dedicated | professionals walking entire classes en masse through | curriculum --- a very different situation. | xyzelement wrote: | I think you are referring to something on one hand very | valuable, on the other hand it's very easy to graduate | college without learning that, and I think colleges | themselves in recent decades are pivoting away from. | | A hundred+ years ago when "almost nobody" went to college, | college was a place for those hungry and willing to sacrifice | for intellectual growth. Nowadays college is a baseline | consumer good that "almost everyone" is expected to consume, | and having the desire for intellectual growth as a | prerequisite just wouldn't scale. | | I also think that some of the classes I took (20 years ago, | at a state school) would not be taught this way today. Eg I | had a class that really critically analyzed native American | cultures. Today the class would be considered racist, it | would have to a priori be an admiration of those cultures, | rather than a critical analysis. Ditto even on a class that | focused on Soviet dystopian literature taught by an emrigre. | | The good news is that its much more accessible now days to | learn how to think outside a college system. If that's what | you are hungry for, college is perhaps even your least likely | bet. | | I say this as a person with 3 degrees. Higher education | worked for me because I made sure it did and colleges were | more old school then than now. | patja wrote: | > Nowadays college is a baseline consumer good that "almost | everyone" is expected to consume | | I think this depends quite a bit on your socioeconomic | class. Overall in the US, only about 1/3 finish a college | degree | xyzelement wrote: | You get the point I'm making though, right? :) If you | want to sell your product to 33% percent of kids, your | product has to be very easy to consume. | JAlexoid wrote: | You have a very weird understanding on how colleges today | operate. | | There has been a lot of progress in exposing students to | broad and multifaceted view of human endeavours. Aboriginal | cultures are portrayed in full and with their negative and | positive aspects in courses about them. I literally had a | course on pre-colonial American cultures... that included | all aspects of culture. | | What would be racist - is having presenting a very lopsided | view on what happened before colonial era replaced those | cultures in the "new world" | [deleted] | Balgair wrote: | As an uncle told me many moons ago: | | Do more in college. Write a rock opera, spend a week curled | up in the union learning about black holes, be good enough | to tutor. | | Don't just graduate with nothing but a taste for bad jazz | and cheap beer. | OJFord wrote: | Or, as cousin Melchior put it, 'anything other than a | first or a fourth is wasted'. | | ( _Brideshead Revisited_ - Evelyn Waugh. Not sure how | internationally read it is, but a worthwhile classic. | British degrees are classified from firsts to thirds (via | upper and lower second class honours) - but the story is | (initially) set at Oxford, which at the time awarded | fourths.) | Balgair wrote: | Thanks for the reccomendation! I am a bit confused | though. Is 'a first' the top score on an exam or like a | _suma cum laude_? | | Free link to the book here: | | https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/waughe- | bridesheadrevisited1945/w... | cperciva wrote: | "First" means "first class honours" aka. the highest | designation of degree. The US equivalent is summa cum | laude, yes. | OJFord wrote: | People sometimes talk about it in terms of exams in the | sense that they'd achieve a first overall if that exam | was 'it', or that it brings their average up etc. - but | strictly speaking you can only achieve first class (or | any other) honours for the degree as a whole. It's | commonly (but not necessarily) >70% overall. Equivalent | to achieving some high GPA range. | zinckiwi wrote: | American translation: graduating with anything other than | a 4.0 or a 1.0 is wasted. | OJFord wrote: | Or rather between them, yes. (Or a bit lower than 4.0, | that's perfect right? Or do you not have to get full | marks on every exam to achieve that?) | lawtalkinghuman wrote: | First = highest undergraduate degree classification in | the British system. | | Universities in the UK treat a degree from the US with a | 3.7 or 3.8 or higher GPA as equivalent to a first | according to Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br | itish_undergraduate_degree_c... | WWLink wrote: | A lot of CS students need to be told this as well. If you | take the bare minimum CS so that you can double major in | business, don't come crying on here that CS didn't teach | you anything about programming lol. | quadrifoliate wrote: | > Eg I had a class that really critically analyzed native | American cultures. Today the class would be considered | racist, it would have to a priori be an admiration of those | cultures, rather than a critical analysis. | | This is bullshit. The difference is that today, _your own | culture_ e.g. (non-native) American society till the modern | day is considered fair game for analysis, whereas 20 years | ago there was probably a fair bit of "they are savages to | be studied, whereas we are _civilized_ " complex going on. | | Guess what, that tends to temper critical analysis of other | cultures as well, and focuses on understanding without | judgement. It is dishonest to cast this as "a priori | admiration". | | > The good news is that its much more accessible now days | to learn how to think outside a college system. If that's | what you are hungry for, college is perhaps even your least | likely bet. | | An unnecessary dichotomy. The Internet is not blocked at a | college, you can continue to study outside things while you | are at college. The problem for most people seems to be | that at a college, these ideas will be subjected to | rigorous intellectual analysis, whereas on the Internet | it's easier to hide in echo chambers where everyone agrees | with you. | | > I say this as a person with 3 degrees...colleges were | more old school then than now. | | I think this is little more than viewing the past with | rose-tinted glasses. Guess what, things change, and usually | in a way that society is better off. I highly recommend | against the Internet as a substitute for actual college | education because it's not "old school" any more. | xyzelement wrote: | // The difference is that today, your own culture e.g. | (non-native) American society till the modern day is | considered fair game for analysis | | These was definitely no shortage of ability to analyze | and criticize western civilization in a college 20 years | ago. | | // An unnecessary dichotomy. The Internet is not blocked | at a college | | You are replying to a comment about what is _accessible_. | College does not preclude internet. College however is an | extremely large resource and time commitment. Therefore | ability to learn outside of that is a great addition. | | // Guess what, things change, and usually in a way that | society is better off. | | Agreed. Hence the article we are all talking about - | people wisely chosing to forego college as a default. | meany wrote: | I can't speak to what the original poster experienced in | college, but your heated response implies a resistance to | at least some forms on inquiry as unacceptable or | inappropriate or at a minimum worthy of disparagement, | which I think undermines your argument a bit. | quadrifoliate wrote: | > but your heated response implies a resistance to at | least some forms on inquiry as unacceptable or | inappropriate or at a minimum worthy of disparagement | | I'm trying to engage reasonably by assuming some things | here, specifically that the OP has peripheral knowledge | of some courses (since they haven't actually attended | college recently) and they are categorizing the | relatively detached nature of those courses as "a priori | admiration". | | I guess I could also respond by simply asking for | specific examples of "a priori admiration" that the OP | has seen in college courses recently. I doubt I will get | any, but am open to changing my mind if I do. | xyzelement wrote: | The person you are replying to was onto something when he | called your comment "heated" | | Your first post had none of the things you are talking | about in your 2nd post... It simply said "that's | bullshit" and suggested that what changed is the openness | of western culture to criticism. | | Your second post (one I am replying to) is more | reasonable but if this is somehow what you originally | meant that's not what came out.. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | << But I wouldn't dismiss its value in being taught how to | think. | | I agree. | | I had my best critical thinking class in community college. | If I was innately smart, I probably would not have needed | it as badly, but that one class gave me a lot of foundation | and some credence to 'education' being useful. In other | words, I am not smart, but I am educated. Overall, I think | society benefits from that. | | But that was 2 year community college after which I | transferred ( and later got an MBA ). | happytesd8889 wrote: | People always use this term "critical thinking" on the | internet and I am not sure anybody that uses it has a | good definition of what it means or why it is something | that can or must be taught in a college kind of | environment. | | At least personally, it's concerning to find out how many | people think they are thinking critically all the time, | but are not able to think critically about the definition | of critical thinking. | | It seems to me that there are several common ways people | define the term: | | 1. To mean any innate interest or drive whatsoever for | knowledge in any topic that is remotely academic or | related to something academic. Typically in the context | of something free-form and not guided by an instructor. | | 2. To mean the ability to re-evaluate beliefs shaped by | the knowledge you have previously absorbed. This is the | most common definition but also the most problematic | since it rarely involves questioning your beliefs about | critical thinking itself in the future. In essence you | are replacing one source of truth with another source of | truth making claims based on authority. This often leads | to the typical "I learned about critical thinking, now I | will reject anything my parents say as false and things | my school says as true". I don't believe that is what is | meant by this definition, but it is unfortunately very | common for people to leave their "critical thinking | class" with that kind of takeaway. They also might leave | their critical thinking class with the tendency to come | up with meta questions and meta narratives and then put | them on the internet a bit like what I'm doing. I hate | that as well since it's incredibly annoying. | | 3. To mean the ability to come up with solutions to a | novel problem; to synthesize information from a variety | of sources and come to a conclusion substantially | different from each source individually. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | As part of my history degree a required course was a | guide to studying history (I don't remember what it was | called - it was so long ago my degree could be considered | history at this point). The whole course was about | looking at the narrative in whatever work we were reading | and then thinking about the author of that narrative. It | was important to consider what the author was (and | wasn't) saying in their work, to consider reasons why | they were and weren't saying things. | | For instance (and this wasn't an example from the course | - that would be brutal to read the whole thing over a | semester - I can barely remember the works we discussed | directly) - Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and | Fall of the Roman Empire. He has a discussion around | Christianity and the Catholic Church being one of the | reason's for Rome's fall. It's interesting to place this | idea in the context of HIS time - he was writing during | the late 18th century and we see his contemporary modes | of thoughts in events like the French Revolution, when | there was a deliberate effort to remove the Catholic | Church's power. The contemporary thought and his | arguments mirrored each other. It was as much studying | the work in its historical context as studying what the | work was saying. This is what I think of when I think of | critically thinking - considering all the layers of both | the argument and why it's being made. | | These are probably details around your point 2 in that | they are meta questions, and while annoying, are vital to | engage with a historical text outside of anything but as | a collection of facts and an entertaining narrative. | dontknowwhyihn wrote: | I would define critical thinking as a way of filtering | information before absorbing it as truth. This involves | actively questioning it- is it internally consistent, | does it seem to have an agenda, are some obvious | questions not being considered, are the arguments | appealing more to emotion than logic, etc. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | Hmm. I mean an actual class in critical thinking. It | consisted of several things, but mostly things like basic | logic, fallacies and so on. | | In other words, neither of three options listed. | Animats wrote: | The CIA has a school for intelligence analysts.[1] | | _" At the beginning of 2002, the courses were as | following: during the first week, an introduction to | intelligence topics included the history, mission and | values of the CIA, as well as a unit on the history of | intelligence an literature taught by the Center for The | Study of Intelligence's (CSI's). Next, during the | following five weeks, analysts are introduced to a | variety of skills including analytic thinking, writing | and self-editing, briefing, data analysis techniques and | teamwork exercises, these representing the basic skills | for a CIA analyst. After these five weeks in the | classroom, the students go on a four-week interim | assignment meant to help them understand how the DI | relates to other CIA components, making them better | understand their future role. Then, they return to the | classroom for another four weeks of training in more | advanced topics: writing and editing longer papers and | topical modules addressing issues like denial, | deceptions, indicators and warnings. These special kinds | of analysis require advanced and sophisticated tradecraft | skills. Afterwards, they go away again, for a second | four-week interim assignment and when they return, after | another four weeks in the classroom (when they deal with | even more advanced topics), a task force exercise awaits | them: a two days terrorist crisis simulation outside the | classroom. This is an opportunity to show what they've | learned and to see how they react in a situation that | they might come across in real life."_ | | That's a real "critical thinking" course. What they're | trying to do is teach people how to extracts facts from | contradictory, incomplete, and deliberately false | information. | | Some of the concepts are generally useful. Here's an | overview of the subject, from the U.S. Army.[2] "The | critical thinking material has been used with permission | from The Foundation for Critical Thinking, | www.criticalthinking.org, The Thinker's Guide to Analytic | Thinking, 2012 and The Miniature Guide to Critical | Thinking: Concepts and Tools, 2009, by Dr. Linda Elder | and Dr. Richard Paul." See especially section 2-13, | "AVOIDING ANALYTICAL PITFALLS". | | [1] https://www.performancemagazine.org/how-the-cia- | analysts-are... | | [2] https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy- | IntelAnalysis.pdf | happytesd8889 wrote: | Oh okay that makes a lot of sense. I had a required | course in philosophy that was essentially just that as | well. | | I suppose that is why I'm confused when the term is used, | since I don't think I would use the term critical | thinking for avoiding logical fallacies. A better term | might be "not wrong thinking". Of course this also should | take into account that some things we call logical | fallacies probably shouldn't be considered logical | fallacies at all, like "slippery slope" arguments and so | forth, which are considered to be a fallacy since there | is no mathematical implication, despite the obviously | correct nature of many slippery slope arguments. | | The word critical implies some sort of criticism, I'm not | sure if identifying a logical fallacy is really what we | typically mean by criticism. At the end of the day I | guess the word itself isn't important. | revelio wrote: | You're right. Academics and graduates are terrible for | claiming universities teach critical thinking, yet never | stating exactly what they mean or how they think they're | doing that. Maybe an obscure philosophy class tries, but | the vast majority of students don't take that and the | claim is made about a college education in general, not | philosophy classes specifically. | | Seems to me like it's a self-defeating argument. If they | were really teaching critical thinking as a skill, degree | holders would immediately start arguing with them about | this vague and poorly thought out claim, but in practice | people just nod along. | azinman2 wrote: | Re: critical analysis. I agree with you that inconvenient | truths now get muzzled because they don't fit an acceptable | meta-narrative. This is very problematic for society and | when taken to the maximum, can lead to thinks like | Cambodia's attempt at restarting society by killing all | those who didn't fit the model they were looking for. | | > If that's what you are hungry for, college is perhaps | even your least likely bet. | | I'm not sure what one would be hungry for that couldn't be | met in college. Analyzing cultures for weakness? Doesn't | sound like a particularly meaningful or commonly needed | study. | throwaway4aday wrote: | Arguably, the Cambodian people could have potentially | avoided the genocidal deaths of millions of people by | analyzing the weaknesses of the Soviet/Communist culture, | weaknesses that repeatedly lead to mass death. Seems | pretty meaningful and deserving of study to me. | randcraw wrote: | But would academic wisdom have avoided the rise of Pol | Pot? The German people were pretty well educated and | recently had been reminded of the cost of letting | political forces spin out of control given the debacle | and horrors of of WWI, yet they made the same mistakes as | Cambodia in 1932 in allowing the rise of Hitler (whose | Mein Kamph provided plenty of forewarning of an incoming | regime based in hate). | | I don't see education as the solution to despotism. That | requires a fair mind and rationality -- neither of which | has roots in book learning. | syzarian wrote: | Communism does not lead to deaths and genocide. | Concentrated, uncontested power does. | dahfizz wrote: | And communism leads to concentrated, uncontested power. | The dictatorship of the proletariat will never dissolve | itself once it gets absolute power. | yonaguska wrote: | Or at least it requires it in order to function. Not sure | which comes first. | inglor_cz wrote: | One of the problems with this argument is that the | murderous Cambodian oligarchy consisted of graduates of | Western universities. | | Intellectuals in general have espoused a lot of inhuman | political ideologies. | wolverine876 wrote: | > inconvenient truths now get muzzled because they don't | fit an acceptable meta-narrative | | Are you in college? | | > can lead to thinks like Cambodia's attempt at | restarting society by killing all those who didn't fit | the model they were looking for | | Wow. That's pretty wild! Can you back that up somehow? On | the Internet, extreme statements somehow have more | credibility. In college, more extreme statements require | more extreme support for them. | | > Analyzing cultures for weakness? Doesn't sound like a | particularly meaningful or commonly needed study. | | What is more important than looking at ourselves in the | mirror, and learning everything we can from others? It's | not like we are doing so well right now. | mkl wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide | | It's not an extreme statement, just a brief description | of well-known events. | wolverine876 wrote: | The statement didn't describe the Cambodian genocide. How | about backing up the actual claim? | mkl wrote: | I suggest you read the article. If that doesn't answer | your question I think you and I are interpreting the | claim differently. | wolverine876 wrote: | I'm not reading articles (especially Wikipedia) and | trying to infer your argument for you. You state it if | you've got it. Stop making excuses. Assume I know about | the Cambodian genocide. | mantas wrote: | Cultures shall be analyzed as a whole, advantages, | weakness and not skip infamous parts. Cherry picking is a | direct way to indoctrination. | jackmott wrote: | [dead] | xyzelement wrote: | Re second point, I mean something else. | | 200 years ago I had to go to university because why? | That's where the books and smart people were | concentrated. | | So I would pay a lot of money and physically relocate | myself to access those books and people. | | Now? I can study online, I can read, I can converse with | super bright people of my chosing without the friction | and limits of doing that in a college environment. | pacaro wrote: | There's a two edged sword here, both for the university | student and the independent learner | | Learning in a structured environment provides access to | the orthodox in the field of study. This can be very | valuable to limit unnecessary exploration of blind | avenues (there is of course such a thing as necessary | exploration of blind avenues) | | For those who progress through the academy, the risk is | that they become narrow thinkers | | For those without access to the structure, the risk is | that they become cranks | | These aren't absolutes, but they are observable trends | | [Edit: are --> aren't] | sitkack wrote: | I think pre-U education should focus on didactics and | metacognition, philosophy, logic and the scientific | method. To really focus on the thinking behind the | thinking, to never do it by accident. | | University should not be separate from earlier forms of | education, things that are university like should also | filter back into to high school and middle school. | | As a borderline-crank myself, I think we need more folks | with crank tendencies and more folks with a solid | scientific approach. We have the most minds right now, | amazing capabilities but at the same time, a narrowing | Chesterton's Window (I know, Overton Window, :) | | We should push kids harder in the ways that matter and | less in the ways that is too soon. Grinding arithmetic | and non-contextualized history is a multilayered waste of | time. I am very pro both of those subjects, just the way | we teach them an the timing is way off. | somenameforme wrote: | You just end up kicking the can around the same problem. | While college education being dumbed down is a typical | topic, the exact same is earlier education - and also for | the exact same reason. Here [1] is an 8th grade exam from | 1912. Good luck! | | The issue isn't some failure of education, but the fact | that people are different and have different skill sets. | And as education came to be expected to be something | everybody goes through and in a roughly similar fashion, | the inevitable decline to the lowest common denominator | was inevitable. | | [1] - https://bullittcountyhistory.org/bchistory/schoolex | am1912.ht... | pdntspa wrote: | How dumb is your expected audience if that test required | a "good luck!" | | It's like basic math.... | bumby wrote: | > _it's like basic math_ | | Did you continue to read it? Because it covers other | topics. Without using the internet, can you name the | eligibility requirements of the Gov. of Kentucky? How | about five county officers and their principle duties? | | I think your initial response belies a deeper problem we | struggle with. Our attention span has shortened and | social media has biased us towards more course | interactions. | Larrikin wrote: | I would say that knowing eligibility requirements of the | governor of Kentucky without using the internet is | useless information to everyone that doesn't work in the | Kentucky election office. | | The useful skill is being able to find the information on | the Internet if you want to run for governor of Kentucky. | If you grow up in Kentucky learning it once in seventh | grade is sufficient so you know it's a possibility, but | will most likely never matter again after that class. | pdntspa wrote: | Why do we need this stupid metric of "will I ever use | this"? That is a recipe for ignorance. You will never be | able to handle novel circumstances if you limit your | knowledge to shit you think you will need. | pdntspa wrote: | That's all shit that I am sure I would be able to answer | if I had paid attention in class. Which is what they are | trying to test. | wolverine876 wrote: | > Learning in a structured environment provides access to | the orthodox in the field of study. | | That's a trope of critics, but not what happens. Have you | studied in college? They (almost always) cover a very | wide range - much wider than you will discover on your | own - and the focus is to teach you to think critically | and be able to examine them yourself. They are not there | to teach you information, or that is secondary (at least | in social sciences and humanities). | | Also, you omit other enormous benefits, including | personal tutorial - including guidance, feedback, etc. - | from leading experts and PhD students, not to mention a | room full of peers studying the same things. | hamburglar wrote: | The self-taught path can also lead to another kind of | deficiency, which is someone who knows all the concepts | but doesn't know how to talk about them efficiently. This | ends up being the type of person who spends 5 minutes | describing a component of their design where items are | stored based on a key and can be looked up by that key so | another process can stash and retrieve those things | rather than recompute them but the things only stay | stored for a certain amount of time or based on some | other criteria like how much space is available or how | frequently they are fetched and--- and you cut in and say | "so a cache." | | I used to have a particularly brilliant (not sarcasm; he | really was brilliant) colleague who "invented" lots of | things that had already been invented and would have | saved a lot of time by just bouncing things off others | who would say stuff like "oh, so it's RPC" or "oh, so | like a distributed queue" and stop him from reinventing | the wheel. | sitkack wrote: | Now we have LLMs which can name concepts by description! | | Your colleague can dump their thoughts into such a system | and quickly get back the shibboleths and the foundational | papers. Now is the best time to be a self-taught genius. | inglor_cz wrote: | The narrow thinkers / cranks dilemma is beautifully | described, thank you. | | You aren't in the academia, are you? Because you explain | things in simple terms, yet very efficiently. | | One of the diseases of current academia is use of an | extremely stilted language, perhaps intended to paper | over some logical cracks. | Animats wrote: | > One of the diseases of current academia is use of an | extremely stilted language, perhaps intended to paper | over some logical cracks. | | One word. Derrida. | | ChatGPT and its successors may put a big dent in the | pretentious blithering industry. It's now too easy to | generate a pseudo-academic style. Large language models | are really good at this, because they have so much | obscure text upon which to draw. | pacaro wrote: | I've done a bit of both so to speak. I studied History | and Philosophy of Science as an undergrad, but have | worked as self taught software engineer for nearly 30 | years. | | I don't think that jargon is created to confuse or | obfuscate, most likely the opposite. My favorite example | is in sailing. Every functional part of a sailboat has a | name, because precise communication between crew can be | critical and saying "pull the rope, no the other one, no | the other other one" doesn't help. But telling a non | sailer to tighten a jib sheet seems unnecessarily | persnickety. | psyklic wrote: | > Now? I can study online, I can read, I can converse | with super bright people of my choosing | | This is true, but in practice few people do it. Most | people will not have much time left for study alongside a | job. And without the "friction"/motivation college | brings, most people will not learn anywhere near as much. | selimnairb wrote: | I get what you are saying, but most people couldn't | afford the journal subscriptions necessary to get a | graduate education, or to learn any field in depth. | Hopefully open access obviates this problem. The other | value of being on campus is having access to professors. | Not clear how to find the same master-apprentice | relationship outside of academia for some fields. | wolverine876 wrote: | > I had a class that really critically analyzed native | American cultures. Today the class would be considered | racist, it would have to a priori be an admiration of those | cultures | | If we are going to be collegiate, let's critically examine | our own posts. What is that based on? It doesn't match what | I know. | rvba wrote: | 4) Finding spouse of similar background | jimkleiber wrote: | I'm surprised you didn't include anything about meeting people | for work, romance, friendship, or other social benefit, as for | many, that can be a huge part of college. | hgsgm wrote: | That's only because almost everyone desirable goes there. If | people stopped going, they could meet elsewhere. | jimkleiber wrote: | I think people have a lot of shared context in college that | they don't often have elsewhere. Depending on the college, | but especially in the US campus experience, people live | together, eat together, study together, party together, and | more. So I don't think it's just the desirability of | people. | thaw13579 wrote: | Yes, when mixed together in the world at large, it's rare | to run into people who have enough shared context to | click with. | Ar-Curunir wrote: | Have you seen the vast majority of the USA? It's suburbia | and parking lots. You try meeting people there. | thomastjeffery wrote: | The trouble is: where? | | The alternative is a variety of places, and practically all | of them have some kind of tax; where it be coffee, alcohol, | or some kind of membership fee. | | What we are missing is called, "the third place". | fschuett wrote: | The third place is called "church" and it has been the | center of socialization for 2000 years before western | society replaced it with college and nightclubs. | thomastjeffery wrote: | I disagree. | | Church is more equivalent to hobby clubs and work. Church | is focused on a specific narrative, whether that be | religious belief or generalized "unity". No matter how | casual the experience, churches have _purpose_ and | _exclusivity_. | | The third place isn't only _physically_ missing: it 's | missing in our social behavior. It could easily exist in | public parks, but we are expected to avoid strangers. | vehemenz wrote: | It sounds plausible, but university towns (at least in the | US) are pretty unique in that they are dense and young | people can afford to live there. You could say commuter | campuses don't have the same social scene because not | "everyone desirable goes there," but I'd wager it's more | due to students driving in from 45 minutes away rather than | living amongst each other. | hgsgm wrote: | > under the guise of "becoming a lifelong learner" or | something, | | That's "finishing school for the [wannabe] elite" who find out | at the end that they weren't ever in the elite. | VLM wrote: | > this completely cripples them in the future when they could | otherwise have had great careers | | > It's good that students are turning away now | | Conspiracy theory: the powers that be, are not dumb, they know | this, and rely in this to increase their stability by | eliminating the competition and the ambitious. Scared people | make bad decisions; their replacement for neutering-via-college | is not likely to be as easy to deal with, so I donno about | "good" as an adjective. | [deleted] | dahart wrote: | This seems _really_ funny to me. There's been a huge push by | elites and right-leaning politicians in particular to | downplay college education and to trot out blue-collar | workers, to convince people _not_ to go to college. Joe the | Plumber, for example. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber | | Conservatives and businesses want more people to take low- | paying jobs, and having the masses be educated threatens | their ability to pay minimum wage. The St. Louis Fed | published statistics [1] demonstrating that people with | 4-year degrees earn an _average_ of twice what people who | don't go to college earn. That is a truly massive | discrepancy, and completely surprised me when I read it. I | would have assumed that degrees were maybe a 10% or 15% | advantage statistically. That it's double is astounding, and | it really very much undermines the notion that somehow people | are getting tricked into going to college. | | [1] https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/re | vie... | | (Note the title argues that college isn't worth it. Read the | statistics, they tell a _completely_ different story. The | headline is based on the idea that total savings at | retirement came down somewhat for college educated people, | and it completely neglects the fact that these savings are 2x | larger than non-degree holders, and come after a lifetime of | 2x higher salary.) | mtrower wrote: | > Conservatives and businesses want more people to take | low-paying jobs, and having the masses be educated | threatens their ability to pay minimum wage. | | Not having tradesman threatens the ability of society as we | know it to continue. We aren't going to get far without | carpenters and plumbers. These jobs simply need to pay | more. | | > and it really very much undermines the notion that | somehow people are getting tricked into going to college. | | It's also quite possible for them to come out of college | $40k in debt, with no job to show for it, and end up | struggling to pay that off for the rest of their lives. | | Idk about the article though, it opens by saying this | person had a free ride on the table. They probably should | have taken it. | dahart wrote: | > These jobs simply need to pay more. | | Totally agree! What can be done to get trade jobs to pay | as much as white-collar desk jobs that require degrees? | | > It's also quite possible for them to come out of | college $40k in debt, with no job to show for it, and end | up struggling to pay that off for the rest of their | lives. | | It is possible, sure, but the data shows conclusively | that you're better off, statistically speaking, with a | degree. The average outcome for degrees is double the | salary and double the lifetime earnings. So if we're | going to talk about struggling, we need to be fair to the | people who struggle to pay for food and housing, not just | struggle to pay off their college debt. College debt has | been going up, and that might be the reason that college | educated people are having _relatively_ less saved at | retirement age as of late. | | Anyway, yeah I agree about the anecdote too. | irrational wrote: | I don't know. I studied ancient history and historical | linguistics in college. I managed to graduate with <$10k in | debt because of working multiple jobs, academic scholarships | and Pell Grants. Now, I have worked professionally as a | programmer for >23 years, but I don't consider my time in | college to be wasted at all. College introduced me to a much | more diverse group of people. I got to interact with very smart | people on a continuous basis which helped me to think more | clearly, more logically, etc. | lxm wrote: | 4. An amalgamation of sports teams for talented athletes to | shop their skills to professional sports scouts. | TheMaskedCoder wrote: | The sports side of college is bizarre. I think it is | descended from British upper class amateur athletics, but it | makes no sense in modern times. Athletics has nothing to do | with education. Nothing at all. Star athletes are there only | so they can get noticed by scouts. Universities keep teams | around for the money. They ought to stop pretending there's | any connection to education and replace it all with minor | leagues and farm teams. But since there's a hundred years of | tradition, I doubt anything will change. | vasco wrote: | They have something to do with it in the sense that many | people practice them and they need to practice them growing | up in order to be able to do it as a job. You also cannot | discount the impact of athletics programs on national | defense and the programs that were done by multiple | presidents to keep people active and healthy. Sports have | this quality among cultural activities that they tend to | improve your body and reduce healthcare costs in the | overall population the more active it is, while at the same | time ensuring you have at least some people that could go | to war if needed. This explains why there's more | legislative support and allowances for sports programs than | say music or theater. | Ekaros wrote: | But why connect it to education? Why not make it general | program for all ages? Why not encourage community run | programs for teams consisting for example company | workers, or local neighbourhood teams? The education ends | very quickly and it is the older than that people who | could really benefit from these activities. | harvey9 wrote: | Lots of places do all of those things. It does not need | to be just one or the other. | lotsofpulp wrote: | They serve as a decent socioeconomic filter since many | sports require the parents of the player to be of at | least certain economic means. | ragtete wrote: | I don't know why folks put down college sports. If you do | 4 years on a D1 team, you can certainly call yourself an | expert in that sport. They're not just messing around, | they're learning and developing their skills. | | They may not go pro or use that knowledge directly later | in life, but neither do a lot of degree holders in their | field. | BolexNOLA wrote: | > They're not just messing around, they're learning and | developing their skills. | | Yes, but almost universally at the expense of the | education they are allegedly there to get. Especially D1 | programs. That is why many of us don't think it makes | sense to tie it to education. To play at the level they | are required to, they have to sacrifice their education. | I think we all know how there are "football player | classes" and curriculums designed to minimize | school/education time and maximize their time for | football. | | Hell how many times have we seen scandals involving | completely fake courses for athletes? UNC got in trouble | for this in 2015 or so after _decades_ of doing it. They | were hardly the first and we all know it hasn't stopped. | | They can't have both unless they lower the quality of the | education received (which is pretty silly, considering | they are at institution primarily designed around | education) or lower the standards of competition for | sports, which is never going to happen as long as one | team wants a competitive advantage. | whateverman23 wrote: | I'm guess asking: Why is 4 years of dedication to a sport | (in at least the D1 context) not considered an education | on its own? | | List the degrees achievable from a typical college, and | rank them in terms of usefulness outside college. Then | fit 4 years of a D1 sport into that list. I have a hard | time believing the usefulness of 4 years of a D1 sport | would be at the bottom of the list. | BolexNOLA wrote: | I think the forms of education here are pretty darn | distinct. Didn't say it wasn't worth it/wasn't valuable. | Same reason we have conservatories like with ballet. | hgsgm wrote: | That's true but an extremely small cohort, <100 per school, | at only a few of the top sports schools. | tbihl wrote: | I suspect you're thinking too narrowly on this one. Sure, | there's football and basketball (women's as well as men's), | plus soccer and baseball, too, in the team sports space. | But there are also plenty of golfers and tennis players, | including in many schools you've never heard of, that have, | or believe they have, a decent chance of going pro. | vehemenz wrote: | People--and not just "elites"--actually go to college to learn | things. This is way too cynical/contrarian of a take. | | Attend more actual college, read less Howard Zinn. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Yeah, I really don't like the above take either. I have a | history degree, and I've done very well for myself at a tech | company. The writing and critical thinking skills I acquired | have given me a huge leg up over more "technically minded" | people in many situations (though I would never go as far as | to say they wasted their time or I always have an advantage. | It's case by case, like most things in life). | | He's basically doing the "kids go to college and get a | useless English degree" line that many boomers throw around, | just with different window dressing. | jltsiren wrote: | 4. A socially acceptable excuse for spending a few years | learning and doing interesting things, instead of focusing on | something more productive in the short term. | | When I was a student, it was a different time and place (20+ | years ago in Finland), but this was a major motivation for many | people. Some people didn't have the financial means to take | advantage of that, some had too many social obligations, and | some were simply not interested in learning. But for many, | learning was a major reason for attending a university. | | And this was not about the elite. In fact, studying a field | with a clear professional identity and good prospects for a | high-status high-paying job predicted having high-status | professional parents and right-wing values. Studying a more | academic field was a weaker predictor for left-wing values and | middle-class parents. If anything, the elite saw higher | education more as an investment, while the middle class was | more likely to treat it as an opportunity to do interesting | things. | tempsy wrote: | it's more like people tricked into going into the finishing | school route at a non-elite college, not about whether you come | from a rich family or not and don't need to take on debt. | | Go to an Ivy League and major in history and you still have a | better chance at getting a job at an elite investment bank than | someone who goes to a non target state school and majors in | statistics or something. | gloryjulio wrote: | Yes, basically lots of low tier unis are not worth wasting ur | money on. | | Ironically, I learnt the most important skills(learn how to | learn effectively, prioritization etc) only after I started | to work in a company where I was getting coached. I would | have been far more efficient if go back to school now. | tempsy wrote: | i wouldn't say that. i just think if you go to a lower | ranked school your path to career success more so relies on | getting a technical degree but yes you shouldn't be | studying liberal arts at a no name school. | pasttense01 wrote: | While these no name schools don't have a reputation | nationally, they do have a reputation locally. So if you | are looking for a job within a 50 to 100 mile (or | whatever) radius of this university it will help in | getting a job. | gloryjulio wrote: | You just proved my point. Since most of the ppl do need | to work for money and success or their quality of life | suffers.They would need something like unis, trade | school, online schools or whatever to bring them to their | goal. By this standard lots of low tier unis are not | worth the time | tempsy wrote: | no i didn't. it's not about the ranking it's about what | you choose to study. if you go to a lower ranked school | you need to focus on technical skills. saying it's not | worth it in general is not what i said at all | gloryjulio wrote: | u changed my word again. i never mentioned ranking like | the one u read in the media. i said tier because i meant | the actual usefulness whether they r teaching aligns with | ur goal. Ultimately it's about how useful they r to the | students. I literally bring up effective studying as my | own example and do u think the unis have this as an | actual subject? | | I'm not sure what u r trying to argue here, especially | when u keep changing my word. U know exactly what I meant | and u r just looking to be a contrarian | hgsgm wrote: | That's what parent&thread said. Technical trade was | mentioned as a category | tempsy wrote: | yes i know. i'm just clarifying for the above comment | that all lower ranked colleges are not worth attending | gloryjulio wrote: | > lots of low tier unis | | My original post is still up there you know. I never said | ALL | mysterydip wrote: | Might be considered part of #2, but "feeder program for | professional athletes" would be another goal for some. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Or #1 possibly... | | The whole American college athletics thing is crazy, and | almost completely disjointed from the rest of what "college" | is. | [deleted] | solatic wrote: | Not just three uses, but also three fundamentally different | offerings: | | 1. If you're looking for a professional trade school, go to a | state school for undergrad. Every elite graduate who joins a | BigCo after finishing finds themselves shoulder-to-shoulder | with ten state school graduates who paid a fraction as much as | they did to get to the same exact place. | | 2. If you're looking for an elite finishing school, well, | there's only so many schools at the top. Ivies or Stanford or | bust. If you don't get in, or can't afford to go, well, this | route simply isn't open to you. Just don't fool yourself into | thinking some small land grant college few people have heard of | will give you the same thing. Elite finishing schools are what | they are because of the connections you form there, not the | educations they offer. | | 3. You have a much stronger head-start on the rest of the | academic market if you start at one of a handful of schools, | places like MIT or CalTech. You can, of course, still end up in | academia coming from a state school, but it's much, much harder | to stand out, much harder to get involved with undergraduate | research, much harder to put together a strong academic | portfolio not for _any_ graduate school but for _connected_ | graduate schools. | ouid wrote: | A university is where you go to be exposed to the most correct | way of thinking that we have. | | Sure, they offer other services, and the administrations of | these institutions have turned them into capitalist hellscapes | which warp even the original service, but the ultimate point of | a university _is_ an apprenticeship. Just in thinking instead | of plumbing. | | This is what education should be, and everyone should receive | it. I am not convinced of the value of pre-university | education, so perhaps we should just do it earlier. | | It doesn't scale the way a business typically scales. You can't | automate it or fit it under an ever lengthening hierarchy, but | it does in fact scale incredibly well. | | Everyone who is taught to think better can teach others to | think better. | | The market is not correcting itself. The market is destroying | the premise of a university. | loldk wrote: | [dead] | dividefuel wrote: | As a millennial, the advice we often received was "just go to | college, it'll almost always be worth it." Now, the advice I give | to those younger is "go to college but only once you know what | you're trying to get out of it." While colleges can let you | explore subjects that you're interested in, they don't do much to | help you explore careers you might be interested in. | | Paying for a degree before you know roughly how you want to use | it costs you time and money. I'd say 3 out of 4 people in my peer | group graduated college without a clear idea of what to do next, | which delayed many of them several years in starting their | career. | | About half of those 3/4s bumbled through different fields trying | to find something that clicked, and some ultimately went back to | school for a different, more specific career. The other half let | inertia win and started grad school immediately, though many of | those ultimately dropped out anyway. Even of those who stuck with | grad school, few have landed anything stable even 10 years later. | | However, those in the 1 out of 4 with a dedicated end goal | (engineer, doctor, professor, etc.) have fared much better. | the_only_law wrote: | > go to college but only once you know what you're trying to | get out of it. | | Unfortunately by the time you figure that out, they don't want | seem to want you. | [deleted] | mrtweetyhack wrote: | [dead] | dpflan wrote: | Is there where ChatGPT and GPT-4 and the like can be helpful? I | know a few days the discussion of AI tutors was double edged, but | if we focus on the later stages of schooling / career path, can | AI tutors be useful for advancing the fields where | apprenticeships make sense? | stillbourne wrote: | I've been saying this for almost 15 years now. Industries like | Software Development need to abandon college and return to the | guild system. Start as an apprentice, move to journeyman, become | a master, and eventually an artisan. All the time training your | juniors. I'm not saying there is no place for college but it | needs to relegated to the jobs that need it, doctors, lawyers, | etc. | rr808 wrote: | I know a bunch of kids in high school so are killing themselves | trying to get into the top seletive colleges. Its nuts - the | worst thing is if you get in those schools are now filled with | the same people who spent their childhood jumping through college | admission hoops. Where do smart normal kids go now? My employer | used to hire from Ivy League schools exclusively but thanks to | zoom we can cast a much wider net. | nonethewiser wrote: | Colleges are failing students. They pay lip service to the | mission of education while prioritizing the growth in f | administration. | | How is it the cost of college has increased far faster than | inflation yet learning outcomes haven't improved? Student teacher | ratios haven't improved. Professor salaries haven't improved. | Real education (teachers and students) need to become the | priority again. | ar9av wrote: | It really depends man. I joined the plumbers union and don't | regret it at all I hated school. Getting a degree these days you | really gotta be careful what you pick and knowing someone getting | a good job goes a long way. Also it's expensive, some kids are | very lucky and there parents get to pay college for them and | don't have to worry about being in debt paying loans for the next | 10+ years. But trades isn't for everybody, and neither is school | so it depends on the person. | devteambravo wrote: | I think we need to treat apprenticeships better. We need a | stronger blue collar sector. At the same time, I'm worried about | this trend towards anti-intellectualism I'm sensing these days.. | It smells fascist, and that is bad. | Scubabear68 wrote: | College made sense for a very long time because a lot of books | were hard to come by for regular folk, and the cost was | reasonable. | | They were great places for young adults to complete the | transition to "adult", to experiment and figure how who they want | to be. | | These days the costs seem to far outstrip the benefits, and the | Internet makes so much more accessible at a young age. | | Parents and kids are finding it hard to justify hundreds of | thousands of dollars just to "figure things out", as we used to. | loeg wrote: | Probably a good thing! Four year degrees are oversubscribed and | have been a low ROI for many students (the "please cancel student | debt" crowd). | ar9av wrote: | It depends on the job/career the person is going for. | | Some jobs; doctors, lawyers, psychologists... would need a book | based education that can't be taught in an apprenticeship or by | just hand-on training. | | Other jobs like carpenter and plumbers and mechanics, people | could probably learn most stuff by just hands on experience, | going out and doing things and figuring out how to do it better, | but would need an apprenticeship to learn how to deal with | meeting building and safety codes based on where they live. | | I'm I network engineer for a global company, and I credit all of | my knowledge to simple hands on experience and google. I learned | a lot about networks just from my time in the military, used that | to get civilian jobs that were more complicated and I had more to | learn, and when ever I hit a point I couldn't get past, I'd ask | someone or ask google, OR just keep smacking my head into that | wall until I figured it out. My B.S. degree in computer science | is more of just that... bs, then the hands on experience I gained | over the past 20+ years. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | Father of 5 (graduated) FL k-12 kids here. FL schools needed some | things more than others. | | - To reflect the actual economic reality of most FL kids, high | schools needed less 4yr college prep and more trade/job prep. | Being ready for years of employment is better than being ready | for years of impossible or debt-laden college. | | - A school year that ends on Halloween and begins after the new | year. Kids are better off in A/C during our 13 month summers and | outside during our 15min of not-summer (when all the holidays are | going on). | | - High schools that start after Elementary and Middle - to allow | needed sleep (a FL rep just intro'd a bill for this!) | | Instead FL kids got leveraged into a culture war that they never | asked for - all so Gov can select parent rights. | 21eleven wrote: | Once upon a time if you wanted to study you went to the library. | All the smart people were hanging out around libraries and | Universities started to appear. Universities had classes and | libraries. | | Now we have the internet. How does this affect the value of a | University education? | dackdel wrote: | amazing news | Eumenes wrote: | I didn't go to college, nor did a few of my best friends - we all | work in tech/IT. Careers spanning development to sales and IT. We | make good income, have little if any debt, and all own homes. | Compare us to some of our peers from high school who went to | college, many still live at home and have some pretty typical | Fortune 500 paper pusher jobs. I think what set us apart was our | general interest in nerdy/tech things from a young age. We built | computers, modded video games, learned to code, worked on cars, | etc. We all came from very low to middle class backgrounds too. | Didn't have parents uber concerned about their legacy and if | their kid was going to be a "loser" or not. Ironically, most of | us made more $$ than those parents by our mid to late 20s. | chernevik wrote: | College was by and large killed when politics confused the | correlation with higher income for cause. We've since wasted a | lot of time and money "educating" people who didn't want and | couldn't profit from college, and in the process muddied | standards so as to pretend they actually belonged. At this point | college has been watered down to a huge waste of time and money. | | The market and society are beginning to correct and that's a very | good thing. | BashiBazouk wrote: | I don't subscribe to college as primarily a way to pump out | worker bees. People should have access to learning beyond that to | which ends only in employment. Cut the bloated administration, | figure out how to lower costs and tailor to different learning | models and schedules. Make it affordable and not to difficult to | register for those in the community who are post college or post | college age to take classes. Don't be afraid to teach trades. | Adapt. | ibn_khaldun wrote: | College stinks, but what will happen to "blue collar" young | people who do not make it into the "white collar" apprenticeship | pipeline, who would have previously achieved so through college. | Oh yeah, well they can just choose college. But as this | apprenticeship thing becomes more popular, what will the | competition be like? | | Young people! The labor market is turtling...what are we going to | do? | | Edit: I'm choosing a more tasteful description for the American | labor market. Thank you for expressing your distaste with the | original one. | danielvaughn wrote: | As someone who racked up nearly $80K in debt going to art school, | I think they're making the right choice (mostly). In some cases | it really makes sense to go to college, but it's a terrible model | for many skills. | zabzonk wrote: | Not to be rude or unsypathetic, but did you think that spending | $80K was going to turn you into an artist? | micromacrofoot wrote: | college isn't quite equivalent to trade school, it wasn't | really about getting a degree in a career field until it | became so outrageously expensive that you needed to | constantly consider how you'd pay it back | zabzonk wrote: | my point was that "art", while certainly a viable career | should you have talent, cannot be taught. | | a bit like programming, or anything else, when i come to | think of it... | danielvaughn wrote: | If it can't be taught, then the same must be true of many | other professions. You need to have a drive for it, sure. | And in some sense, quality is more subjective than in | other fields. But just because it's more subjective | doesn't mean it's entirely subjective - there's a | baseline level of knowledge that you really need to know, | and that can be taught. | micromacrofoot wrote: | most of the greatest masters were taught art from | childhood, it's not magic | zabzonk wrote: | most of the great masters children did not become great | artists | micromacrofoot wrote: | the outcome of their kids doesn't change the fact that | most of them were taught and raised as artists | ldhough wrote: | "Cannot be taught" is a pretty strong claim. I'm not an | artist but it is my understanding that at least some | forms of art (classical, sculpting) require at least some | degree of instruction, and being in school is probably | going to provide easier access to resources like models. | A quick google search with artists I'm familiar with | (Michelangelo, Caravaggio, da Vinci) confirms all were | apprenticed to other artists. | | Anecdotally I think my programming skills also benefited | from a formal education, though there are without a doubt | many self-taught developers who far exceed my skill. | danielvaughn wrote: | I was a very good artist, and when I was 18 I genuinely | believed that college would turn me into a professional | artist. I'm not saying this to brag, but I did have a level | of talent that I could have turned into a career. So it | wasn't a crazy idea at the time. | | What I found, however, was that the education I received | wasn't what I wanted or needed. In my senior year we were | still being taught things that I had known since I was a | teenager. But by the time I realized how much of a mistake it | was, I felt it wouldn't have made sense to quit, because | having a degree with 80K in debt is better than having no | degree with 60K in debt. | [deleted] | Ericson2314 wrote: | Just because the person did not have a successful art career | doesn't mean they aren't and artist and didn't become a | better one. | zabzonk wrote: | of course, anyone can be an artist (or not). my point is | that you don't have to spend $80K to potentially fail in | becoming one. | | interesting to see that talent might beat out education is | no longer an idea here | kdmccormick wrote: | Talent beating out education is OBVIOUSLY still an idea | here, you're just asking disingenuous, leading questions. | | Is $80k on its own supposed to turn a non-artist into an | artist? No, nobody is saying that. You need to be | talented to get admitted in the first place. | | Would $80k lead to lessons, connections, and experiences | that could make an artist's career more successful? Quite | possibly. Or not. It's a risky investment: you pay a lot, | and maybe it pays off, maybe you break even, maybe you | end up behind. | | I'm not defending the >$80k price tag of art school. I'm | saying that it's not irrational for a budding artist to | see it as worth the gamble. | toomuchtodo wrote: | With there being a huge shortage in trades and other roles | where they'll provide an apprenticeship, versus credential | inflation and jobs requiring a bachelor's just for entry level | positions, it makes sense to go where you're valued as a worker | and be catered to instead of having your originated student | loans extracted from you for simply a chance at a white collar | job. | | https://www.newsweek.com/forget-college-skilled-trades-are-f... | | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/despite-rising-salaries-th... | throwaway6734 wrote: | Many trades will be much more protected against AI gains as | well | toomuchtodo wrote: | Indeed! LLMs ain't gonna be performing electrical, | plumbing, earthwork, welding, or carpentry anytime soon. If | anything, its going to flush out the bullshit jobs while | the economy is in a position to reward those performing | higher value work. | helsinki wrote: | This assumes there will be people that can afford to pay | them for their work... | ldhough wrote: | I agree but according to the BLS employment numbers are | as follows in the US: | | Electrician: 650k | | Plumber: 469k | | Earthwork: Don't see an exact match | | Welding: 428k | | Carpentry: 668k | | Software Devs, QA, & Testing: 1.62m | | Programmers: 152k | | Not sure how they differentiate between devs & | programmers but even if we just take the 1.62m figure it | is well over half the total employment in those trades. | If software devs get 75-90% replaced (I don't think it'll | be this bad and for my own sake as an early career dev I | really hope not but I don't see it as impossible) I | imagine most white collar jobs are coming with us. Will | the trades pay as well when a ton of people are looking | to reskill into something that still exists? | mnd999 wrote: | Did you have fun though? Because imho, that's part of the | point. | jvanderbot wrote: | There's more fun to be had with 80k than college. | kdmccormick wrote: | Like? | jvanderbot wrote: | Youre really asking for examples? | | - couple years off traveling the world all expenses paid | | - buying a small lake cabin near family and friends, or | down payment on a very nice place. | | - 10 years of international, three-week vacations | | - retiring 10 years early because over 40 years that'll | be almost 1.3 million. | | - you could get the college experience but for twice as | long by not paying for classes | | - take less expensive classes, live at home, and work | more, and end up with much less debt, then spend 80k on | your first house down payment. | | Im not trying very hard, but I had way more fun after | college than in it, it seems obvious that there might be | better ways to have fun with 80k, that's all. Maybe I'm | wrong. | danielvaughn wrote: | I made a lot of great memories, but I also would have made a | lot of great memories in a different environment that didn't | saddle me with a ton of debt. I do believe that having an | extended period of time away from the "real world", where you | can learn and figure things out, is useful. But (a) I don't | think it's only applicable to young people, and (b) with just | a little ingenuity you could replicate those same conditions | for faarrrr cheaper. | [deleted] | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Maybe so, but then you have the un-fun of being $80K in debt | and trying to pay it back on jobs you can get with an arts | degree. | | Maybe there's more efficient ways of having fun. | Minor49er wrote: | The point is to get an education that can be used to get into | more valuable areas of employment. $80k is a lot to spend on | fun when fun can be found for free | mnd999 wrote: | You're doing both, that's the point. Too many folks on | hacker news see everything in black and white. | theusus wrote: | Wish I had received apprenticeship. It's far better than | academics and teaches one practical skills. | wootland wrote: | I wish it were easier to get a visa and move to another country | without a degree. As someone without a degree, that's been the | most annoying issue. | | The best parts are: not having student loans and not having a | mindset that grinding within "the system" leads to success. | rg111 wrote: | I did my Master's degree solely for visa. Nothing else. | | What little I learned in Master's, I could have learned from | online MIT/GaTech/Michigan/Stanford courses with much more | flexibility, and for free. And a lot better quality, too. | | All the "network" I built that was of any value to me was made | in mailing lists, Twitter, Google Groups, and later Discord. | tester756 wrote: | Haha, I did the same. | | I've found like a week or so before deadline on applying to | master's program that master's can make | | getting visa easier and I've decided that spending every 2nd | weekend at school for 1.5 year may be worth it | | Unfortunately majority of the courses were just waste of time | :( | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I just took 2 years of a redneck tech school (EET technician | trade school). | | Didn't have much choice. I'd pretty much trashed my life, by the | time I was 18, and needed to rebuild it, with limited resources. | | Turned out to have worked out well, for me; although the school, | itself, is now long gone. It was basically one of those wrench | academies that popped up, after Vietnam, to suckle from the teat | of the GI Bill (many of my classmates were Vietnam vets. The GI | Bill was awesome). | | The main thing that it taught me, was professionalism and self- | discipline. It was also pretty current, for the tech (colleges | tend to be a lot farther behind; at least in undergraduate). | | But I had to do a great deal of personal bootstrapping, after | that, to do OK. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Price of college is going up. Wages are stagnating. Quite | unfortunately, it makes perfect sense that fewer people would | think the expense is worthwhile. I wish we offered free high | quality university educations. The USA can coast on its dominance | for only so long before the lack of educated people sinks us. | doomain wrote: | I don't think most colleges make sense, except for the social | life. I did my first university for the studies, and I didn't use | any of it. Then I started a second one just for the parties and | social life, and I hardly studied anything. The second one was | much better... | newhotelowner wrote: | My daughter got rejected from one of the UC. They received 130+k | application for 6k openings. | 999900000999 wrote: | I'll guess ether Berkeley or UCLA? That's why you apply to more | than one. | | Even the Cal States aren't bad schools, you can get a quality | education at a fraction of the price. | david927 wrote: | Someone in this thread wrote this: | | _" California Universities just had the most applications in | history. UCLA 145k applicants, UCSD 130k applicants. | Respectively they are both down now to about a 3% and 5% | acceptance rate due to the spike. Might be Covid holdovers due | to a gap year, or with the economy as it is, out of state | applications have dropped."_ | | If it's true, that's crazy. Up until this year, I think the | lowest acceptance rate was Princeton at 3.9%. | killjoywashere wrote: | Yeah, the UC's application system is a bit ... disingenuous is | the wrong word, but it's a win-win for applicants and colleges: | all the applicant has to do is check all the boxes and pay the | not-terrible application fees and bam, they've applied to all | the schools. This pretty much forces all the students to apply | to most, if not all, of the campuses. Which gives every UC | campus the maximum possible applicant pool. | ghaff wrote: | Unless evaluating the applications is centralized, I'm not | sure it's a great win for schools. | | As someone who has been on the conference committee for quite | a few events, I often think that having some friction or even | strict limits to submitting a proposal isn't the worst thing | in the world. In theory, you want the widest possible pool. | In practice, each proposal/application takes some time to | evaluate and, especially given conferences obviously don't | have quantitative filters like GPA or SAT, picking the best | 50 sessions out of a few hundred is generally a lot less | random than picking the best 50 out of 2,000. | analog31 wrote: | The acceptance ratio is a poor measure, because applying to | multiple schools is easy. Likewise, I first remember | skyrocketing ratios of applicants to job openings when laser | printers became ubiquitous. | | In between college versus apprenticeship, students could apply | for both and then pick the one that seems like the best deal. | Ericson2314 wrote: | YIMBYism in California has been and will continue to be about | expanding the schools (and not just building new ones in | bumbfuck) a lot. | chitowneats wrote: | Good. | psaux wrote: | California Universities just had the most applications in | history. UCLA 145k applicants, UCSD 130k applicants. Respectively | they are both down now to about a 3% and 5% acceptance rate due | to the spike. Might be Covid holdovers due to a gap year, or with | the economy as it is, out of state applications have dropped. | gnicholas wrote: | Relevant book: The Case Against Education | https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d... | | Written by an economics professor, this book argues that much of | the value of education is signaling, and that we greatly over- | school many kids. | kello wrote: | Over here in Germany they have well-established apprenticeship | programs for many more jobs than in the US. There are | apprenticeships for software developers, for bankers, for | "Burokauffrau/Burokaufmanm" (office clerks/administrators), for | media work, for all sorts of medical jobs, and so on. You name | it, and there is probably an "Ausbildung" (apprenticeship) for it | here. The apprenticeship programs are still somewhat not as | "prestigious" as going to university, but they will get you in | the door at a company for that job. | | Many people even combine the two, opting to do an apprenticeship | and follow it up with studies, or vice-versa, or do both at the | same time. | dgb23 wrote: | Same here in Switzerland. Apprenticeships are called | "Erstausbildung" (First education) now. It's regarded as a | stepping stone. | Version467 wrote: | I wish we would try to bring the german apprenticeship program | back to its former glory. It's such a shame that we started | expecting university degrees for more and more jobs just to | appear more compatible with the international job market. | | The german apprenticeship program was a fantastic (and unique) | feature of the german economy. Not every job needs a bachelors | degree. Quite the opposite actually. Many positions that hire | fresh university graduates could fill the position much better | with well trained people who already have lots of hands on | experience. Instead we have tons of people with bachelors | degrees that basically need to be trained from scratch because | the education they got was waaayy too theoretical. | | Unfortunately the apprenticeship program is now far less | prestigious than a bachelors degree (which is also heavily | reflected in pay). So anyone who _can_ go to university won 't | choose an apprenticeship. | | Such a wasted opportunity. | nonethewiser wrote: | Software developers also don't make that much in Germany. You | also need to get past the apprenticeship gatekeepers. No | thanks. | finikytou wrote: | American education became a joke. what used to be a beacon of | light for people all over the world became a grotesque expensive | joke and people don't want to pay six digits to be educated PC | stuff that those uni are pushing now. especially when most of | those kids are way more educated about this topics than the | schools. what they want is to learn things that will help them in | their professional life so that they can earn enough. | | Europe is same btw. no surprise asian countries edge us into | STEM. | yutijke wrote: | I went to undergrad in India so YMMV for the primarily North | American population here. | | A lot of people look back at college fondly, but to me it just | felt like a lot of time and money spent for skills that I had to | acquire on my own any way. | | It was a common opinion among my friends that other non STEM | majors seemed to have an easier undergrad life where they could | find time to explore things rather than trying to build their | profile for the cutthroat competition in the Indian tech | industry. | | It felt very wasteful to spend hours on all that theoretical | knowledge and the Leetcode rat race while knowing they will | heavily atrophy from lack of use the moment you get your first | job. It left you wondering if it was worth it in the end. | nonethewiser wrote: | well what would your job prospects have been with a non-STEM | degree? | darepublic wrote: | In light of the looming threat to many white collar jobs this is | sensible | analog31 wrote: | First of all, I'm optimistic about this. Apprenticeships could | even trickle up. Here's what I mean. The article talks about an | apprenticeship in the insurance industry where you're taking | college classes while working a day job. This could expand into | other areas, such as junior engineers / designers / programmers. | It might not replace college, but turn college into something | that blends with job training in a more explicit way, so that | it's not an either-or choice. | | But I'm wary because we don't know the breadth of what these | apprenticeships actually look like, the long term prospects of | the people who go through them, or the attrition rate. Remember | the private for-profit college scandals. College graduates have | been studied to death, but has the same scrutiny been applied to | the trades? | etothepii wrote: | Insurance is the only profession I know of where there are many | senior leaders in their forties without a degree. | analog31 wrote: | Traditionally, how did they get in? Did they come up through | sales, or through family businesses? | jabroni_salad wrote: | There are multiple paths and different designations you | need to earn to work them. The more letters you can get | after your name, the better. So you don't need a degree, | but there is a moat to cross. | | Agencies: oops, all sales! | | Claims Adjustment: small claims to bigger claims. These are | usually independent outfits that service many carriers for | their geographic area. In some jurisdictions you can get | hired with no experience but you will earn more if you have | any kind of background in accounting or appraisal. | | Quote & Bind | CSR >> assistant underwriter >> underwriter | >> sr. underwriter. These are your big corpo jobs at an | operations center. | jt2190 wrote: | > Today, colleges and universities enroll about 15 million | undergraduate students, while companies employ about 800,000 | apprentices. In the past decade, college enrollment has declined | by about 15%, while the number of apprentices has increased by | more than 50%, according to federal data and Robert Lerman, a | labor economist at the Urban Institute and co-founder of | Apprenticeships for America. | | So in the last decade: Apprentices | Undergraduates 2013 400,000 ~17,600,000 | 2023 ~800,000 15,000,000 | | Edit: Looking at these rough numbers, there are 2.2 million | people unaccounted for, far more than increased the ranks of | Apprentices. Where did they go if not into Apprenticeships? | karlkatzke wrote: | Good. Needs to happen. Was talking to our HVAC repair dude. He | makes as much as I do with a high school education and two years | of trade school. Adjusting for age, he definitely makes more than | I did at 34. | | No reason to send kids who want to work with their hands to four | year colleges and saddle them with 100k in debt when they can | work through a trade school, be done at 20, and have no student | loan debt. | clintonb wrote: | I assume you work in software. | | How hard does the HVAC guy work? I wager if you compared wages | earned per hour worked (not just employed), you come out ahead. | You probably beat doctors and lawyers, too. | | Large salaries mean nothing if you don't account for how much | effort is expended to earn the money. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I.e., pay to quality of life at work ratio (which includes | volatility of pay). | | This is always the answer to the question "why can't we find | workers for x job". | the_only_law wrote: | Yeah I had nurse friends who had impressive pay on paper, but | we're desperate to work in anything else because the shifts | were hellish. | vonwoodson wrote: | The Wall Street Journal is just News Corp. | | We should not spread fake news here. | Mc91 wrote: | I have been programming for a Fortune 500 company for four years. | Not long ago, I applied for a job at another Fortune 500 company. | HR really had only question for me, they saw on my resume I did | not have a college degree listed, and did I have one? I said I | went through most of college towards a Bachelors in Computer | Science but dropped out before graduation. I did not get the job, | although I don't know if that's why. Same thing has happened in | the past with other HR departments. It's not completely fatal, | but it's not helpful either, rather the opposite. | | I went to a good state school and didn't rack up any debt while | going to college. | | In recent headier times, a BSCS was a preferred requirement. In | the current environment, I can easily see job listings on | Linkedin that say a BSCS is a minimum requirement. | | It's just another stumbling block that can be in your path. Some | people don't have a problem with it in their career, and in | headier times it doesn't matter, but when layoffs are happening | as they are now, and companies are flooded with dozens or | hundreds of resumes, an easy thing to do is just look who has a | BSCS and who doesn't and put the latter in the wastebasket. | hippich wrote: | Check out uopeople.edu. you should be able to transfer most of | credits and finish it off in your own time. If nothing else, to | not have these stupid questions from hr | gautamdivgi wrote: | I hate to say this but you were probably an unfortunate bait | for a labor certification of an existing employee on an h1b | visa. | | That is generally the only reason companies will stick to the | bscs requirement. Normally if you have requisite experience the | degree - especially bscs is not needed. | throwaway675309 wrote: | I can't speak to other industries, but many of the companies | that I've worked for the last two decades as a software | engineer required or at the very least strongly recommended a | BS in computer science. | ianmcgowan wrote: | Maybe at software companies, but if you're looking for | corporate IT jobs (which can be pretty cush, referring back | to the thread about that), a degree or sometimes even a | masters is a requirement. | | When I was a middle-manager in Bank IT, I would fight with HR | about it, but they still used to filter out people without | degrees or the "right" degrees. | | I had a reverse filter - there was no point bringing someone | with a CS degree in, they'd be bored to death in three | months; but for people coming from helpdesk/tech support it | was a huge step up in their careers/salary and they were fine | with the "writing/supporting boring CRUD apps for 40 hours a | week" trade-off. | michaelt wrote: | Eh, there _is_ plenty of h1b nonsense, but asking for a | degree is hardly unusual. | | Just like quizzing people about sorting algorithms. People | love to imagine the core of their job is difficult, | intellectual problems that need super-smart people - so they | don't have to admit the main challenge is maintaining | motivation in the face of corporate BS like SOC2. | [deleted] | Zetice wrote: | Asking about a degree isn't the same as requiring one for | the role. | | Every employer will ask, but at this point for software | devs, it's only ever used as an excuse to disqualify | someone for other reasons (e.g. h1b stuff) if they don't | have it. | bluedino wrote: | A job opened on my team where I am working at as contractor. My | boss told me to apply for the job. | | I got an email back right away from HR stating that I didn't | meet the requirements of having a degree. | | Joke's on them, I already work there. | kcplate wrote: | I had a similar situation where the lack of a specific degree | algorithmicly sorted me out of a job where i was not only an | expert in some extremely vertical tech, but a known person | within the industry for the tech and probably the only person | in my metro area with the ability currently looking for new | opportunities. | | After I got the rejection email i called their HR and asked | to just lay my resume on the desk of the COO abd was told "no | can do because i wasn't qualified" | | I got so frustrated that their HR dept was so tone deaf, I | decided the org was a bad fit for me. | | Later on had connected with one of the executives after I | moved on to another org and an industry expo. Told him the | story and he was horrified that they missed the opportunity. | | The moral to the story is you need to get via networking if | you don't have a degree thanks to the rigidity of HR | nowadays. | 71a54xd wrote: | Hate to say it, but this is why I'm incredibly glad I didn't | drop out of college even though I had a solid gig ready to go. | | I knew I wasn't cut out for being an perpetual founder and that | I'd definitely encounter greater challenges not having a degree | than the challenges standing between me and my degree at that | point in time. ($7k and 1 year of my life with classes I wasn't | sure I could stomach). | | Wish you the best, but for those considering this always assume | you maybe aren't the best - think about what comforts you're | giving up. I will say, anyone you talk to on the college / | dropout risk/reward problem are highly biased. Dropouts who | have achieved success are susceptible to survivorship bias and | will vehemently tell you college isn't necessary. PHD's will | always espouse college as the only route because they burned | their entire 20's in college. | loldk wrote: | [dead] | twodave wrote: | Yeah, that's a bummer. Statistically speaking you're better off | finishing it if you want to maximize the number of places that | would be willing to hire you. That said, it can also work in | your favor not to finish since it might weed out companies you | wouldn't want to work for anyway. I'll say anecdotally of the | half dozen or so places I've worked and been involved in hiring | software developers--a college degree would only be relevant if | you had no other experience to speak of. When I look at a | resume I'm looking for "stuff this person has done". Even for | entry level, I'd rather talk about a hobby project they spent | some legitimate time on that whatever a candidate did in | college. | InvaderFizz wrote: | I got my degree at 35 because of this. Not that I actually | learned much of anything in the program, I was there purely for | the paper. | | This is where schools like WGU excel for those of us just | seeking credentials for what we already know. The terms are six | months, you can do as many courses as you want during that six | months. Over half the courses are just a final exam. You take a | pre-test on day one of the course. If you score high enough, | you can take the final exam the same day and be done with the | course. If one were very determined and knew most of the | material going in, you could complete a BS in six months for a | total cost of under $4000. | truetraveller wrote: | Did you do WGU? How long did getting a degree take start to | finish? Did you have pre-credits? | InvaderFizz wrote: | I did go to WGU. It took me way too long. Over 4 years | because I put almost zero effort in and did most everything | at the end of the 6 month term. I wasn't much motivated to | do the courses as I was battling depression, dealing with a | wife and child with health issues, and was the sole | breadwinner. | | I would estimate that I put in less than 500 hours total | towards my degree. I had like 15 pre-credits. | MrLeap wrote: | You're a champion. Well done getting your degree while | yoked that hard. | derbOac wrote: | "seeking credentials for what we already know" | | Not about you at all in particular (quite the opposite), but | this is what drives me into a frenzy of frustration about the | world today. Seems like everything is about credentials and | appearance rather than obvious potential or ability. | ravagat wrote: | +1 for WGU for explicitly getting the paperwork done. I've | recommended this to self-taught peers, vets, and those with | uncommon backgrounds who had to deal with paperwork bias. | | Congratulations on your degree, happy to see other folks take | advantage of WGU. It's really good | karaterobot wrote: | When I hired people at a former company, I secretly thought of | job candidates like you as undervalued stocks. Just being | honest, don't mean any disrespect -- I mean undervalued in the | sense of not being appreciated by other companies, not in how | much we paid people. | | I myself have degrees, but not in anything like software | development, and I think engineers who don't have degrees but | _do_ exhibit all the other characteristics are just as | talented, often more driven, practical, and reliable. Self- | motivated, rather than something they fell into. Thinking of | the five best engineers I 've worked with, two of them didn't | go to school at all, and two had degrees in things like music | or political science. I've had poor experiences with people | whose main qualification is an engineering diploma from a name | brand school. | | Of course there's a middle band in there where it gets more | complicated, but generally I think smart, scrappy companies are | eager to hire people like yourself, and I like working for that | kind of company, personally. | nemo44x wrote: | Larger places tend to have blanket requirements in part to | protect themselves from hiring lawsuits, discrimination, etc. | | I look at education when I hire but I'm more interested in | experience and I never use a degree as a requirement. I am | probably more likely to have the recruiter put the candidate | into the pipeline if they have a CS degree but don't have much | experience or experience that doesn't seem 100% relevant. But | that's not super common. | erikerikson wrote: | Whatever your opinion may be, degrees are often seen as a | heuristic for "can complete a long, hefty commitment". | scrapcode wrote: | I completed my BSCS at a state school in my 30s after already | being a freelance/amateur programmer for many years. I can | honestly say I did not learn a single new thing about | programming. In fact, almost every single bit of the | programming I learned was _completely_ wrong by todays | standards, and rife with mistakes. | throwaway675309 wrote: | I would argue that it's not necessarily the job of a computer | science degree to teach you programming, which is more about | the craftsmanship and likely should be practiced and learned | individually. Computer science is about the theoretics. I | greatly value the CS education I received in linear algebra, | discrete mathematics, etc. which I decidedly would not have | learned on the job. | | If you just want to learn programming you may as well just | enroll in a code camp. | randcraw wrote: | Sounds like you attended a bad school. I earned a MS in CS at | age 30 atop my BS in zoology and 6 years of work as a | programmer. My MSCS program introduced me to many new and | useful concepts and techniques that have informed all the | nontrivial computing tasks I've undertaken since, now 33 | years. That degree has proved to be the best investment of my | life, by a large margin. | the_only_law wrote: | Why are you comparing a BS program to an MS program? | paulpauper wrote: | Nah, not a fan of the trades, sorry. | | Worse job prospects, lower wages, and also debt too. People think | trades are cheaper. They are not. You incur a cost because of | training, and also opportunity cost from not finding work as | easily, and time spent training, which may be unpaid. And then | lower wages. You are better off with a generic 4-year degree from | a mid-ranking school than trades, imho. Student loan debt has way | more payment options, lower interest rates, and forgiveness | compared to trades debt. | | I'm assuming you are able to graduate from college. Dropouts | would generally be better off going into the trades. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | A key facet seems to be missing from the threads here. Most | Americans can't afford a 4-year college. | | ref: | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=study+found+percent+of+americans+c... | | Our (until recently, inexpensive) metro market requires 3-4 | typical incomes to meet basic expenses. The cost of a 4-year | college simply isn't available for most folks. | t344344 wrote: | My friend got expelled in 5th semester after spending over $70k | on education. His ex went nuclear after he dumped her, and | somehow that was relevant to his education. Obviously no refunds | or appeal! | | If you are at uni, treat is as a career. You do not shit where | you eat! Big part of marketing is "socializing", but that comes | with a huge risks to your future and investments. | | Apprenticeships do not care about your sex life! | [deleted] | kredd wrote: | For every data point like this, there's also data like mine - I | met incredible people during my university years. Especially | the first two years when we all lived on campus, we were | basically a family. Even though we're in different coasts of | the continent, we still meet up 5-6 times a year, travel, some | of us even married to each other. | | Socializing and making new friends in your late teens and 20s | is an important part of one's life. Downplaying common space's | (e.g. college, work and etc.) importance and looking at it from | a perspective of ROI, minmaxing every aspect of it is probably | not the healthiest look. | t344344 wrote: | My friend is not a data point. It destroyed his life and he | still has to pay his student loans. There is no chance to get | any money from person that did that to him. | | > Downplaying common space's (e.g. college, work | | I am not downplaying anything. At all those places male has | to behave certain way. You do not drink at company xmass | party, that is a common sense! | | You can have all of that without any risks. Become bartender | at evenings, surf instructor or go apprentice route. College | is not the only place! | | > For every data point like this | | Like 20% of women have problem [1] during their college | years. That also means 20% of male students are on opposite | side of this. I will not go into how data are measured and | reported, but there is a huge chance to get stuck in this net | as a male student! | | [1] https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/sexual- | assault-s... | mkl95 wrote: | Lately I have worked with many junior / mid level guys who | studied CS in college. Meaning they graduated at some point in | the last 3 to 5 years. All of them struggle with basic | communication and tasks that involve working with other humans. | It's like they spent all those years in some cave with no | exposure whatsoever to the real world. | | I get that the goal of a CS degree is not to prepare you for the | software industry, but it's the main goal of most CS students. I | can see why college degrees are not as attractive as they used | to. | Mixtape wrote: | Would you be willing to elaborate on what you've seen a bit? | I'm on the last semester of my CS degree now and have | definitely seen a lot of similar effects as a result of Zoom | courses and general isolation during COVID lockdowns. There's | generally less willingness to reach out to people than there | used to be, and people seem to prefer dividing up tasks and | working independently over collaborative work (e.g. each person | in a group project having a "role" rather than working jointly | on a large segment). There's also a general preference towards | working at home without any external interaction whatsoever and | a lack of willingness to form study groups. As I start moving | into the job application phase of things, I can definitely see | how these traits can be seen as off-putting to hiring managers, | and I'd like to avoid falling into similar traps. Is there | anything else you've noticed that would be worth avoiding? | pyuser583 wrote: | I know a lot of programmers who did poorly in secondary school, | but thrived in college. | | In the past, apprenticeships were an extension of high school, | not a replacement for college. | | I hope they get it right this time. | cyberlurker wrote: | Can Americans still go to university free in other countries like | Germany? Why don't more students go to school abroad for cheaper? | I'm sure it is not so simple, but I still think it is worth | getting the paper just to get past HR. | photochemsyn wrote: | I'd break college programs down into undergraduate and graduate | divisions, and divide schools up based on admission price tag. | Some issues: | | 1. The more expensive the school, the more likely it is to be | something like a British public school for the inherited wealth | class. Interestingly graduate programs are often somewhat | neglected at such institutions, and they're not generally great | research centers. Basically it's about hobnobbing so you can get | a job at your pal's parent's hedge fund or whatever. (#2 on your | list) | | 2. The cutting-edge research universities have inverted that | model. Undergraduates are packed into huge auditoriums and taught | by adjunct professors with the help of overworked grad students | whose professors can't afford to pay them as a lab tech / | research assistant. Here it's all about getting the big grant and | publishing new research. Students who can negotiate this system | successfully can get excellent technical education and experience | at the upper-level undergrad / grad student level in fields like | CS, biotech, engineering etc.(BS/MS). That's #1 on your list. | | 3. There's another category of student that benefits from the | cheaper state schools, and that's due to high schools in the USA | being woefully poor at providing a basic education. These schools | - community colleges and state schools - generally have a two- | year progam that does little more than revisit material that high | schools failed to teach, like reading and algebra and | introductory calculus and programming. The fact this is needed | just reflects the poor quality of K-12 in so many places. | | The little secret that the big research universities don't want | people to realize is that you can often get a better quality of | instruction at most community colleges, due to small class sizes | etc., then for the first two years at a big famous school. Hence | it's wiser to do that and, assuming good grades, transfer in at | the upper undergrad level for the courses and research lab access | that small schools lack. | | I don't really know of any apprenticeship program that could give | one the same level of experience with cutting-edge technology as | something like an MS program in a quality university research | program could. And for that you're going to need a college degree | first, ideally avoiding massive debt along the way. | | As far as the struggle for professorships in the corporatized | academic system, that's a complete political-bureaucratic game of | chairs that doesn't really reward brilliance so much as it does | Machiavellian capabilities. Trofim Lysenko would have fit right | in to today's system. Try to avoid ending up in the Lysenko lab, | whatever you do. | lapcat wrote: | I see some people in the comments claim that you can give | yourself a good liberal arts education outside of college, using | public libraries and the internet, but I'm skeptical. One | commenter even repeated a quote about college being a waste of | money from Good Will Hunting... which of course is a work of | fiction. I attended a state university and still live relatively | close to the campus, with a library card for the public library | and surrounding library system; there's just no comparison: the | university library has vastly, vastly more books and papers of an | intellectual nature than the public library system. Moreover, | university students have vastly more access to online resources | of an intellectual nature than the general public. I would be | extremely hard pressed now to access and re-read many of the | things I read in school. It might be possible, but I'd have to | buy most of them myself, probably online, for an obscene amount | of money. | | College doesn't make you smart. I'm not sure to what extent it | can teach you to think critically either. Those abilities may be | innate, and I brought them with me to college. However, there are | books and papers and ideas that I was exposed to in college that | I never would have been exposed to if left to my own devices. I | didn't even know they existed! Some of those books and papers and | ideas were crucial to the development of my thinking. They | influenced and changed me. This is a principal value of a college | education. Your professors have spent decades reading and | studying things that you've never heard of before, and they let | you know about it. Even if important intellectual works were not | paywalled behind a college tuition -- which I admit is an | unfortunate situation for the public -- those works might get | lost in obscurity anyway, because popular culture and market | capitalism have little or no interest in promoting them to you. | | Students need guidance. There are a lot of people who are self- | motivated, including myself, but that's not the same thing as | self-guiding. You can guide yourself into a dead end if you don't | already know where you're going. | jonathantf2 wrote: | One thing these articles usually fail to mention is the fact that | college/university is also a huge social experience. | | I'm a young person who took an apprenticeship instead of going to | university - only one of my high school friends did the same as | me, literally everybody else went onto university. I'm from a | small town, there's not much going on and apart from when all my | friends come back at Christmas and those few weeks in the summer | I'm not doing much of anything other than work and sitting on my | computer. I imagine if I grew up in a city this would be | completely different but there's not much opportunity to make | friends of my age around here and I really really really wish I | had gone to university just so I wouldn't be so damn lonely, even | if learning on the job works better for me. | | (oh and the fact that most companies don't recognise the | qualification I do have, makes it pretty much useless) | nonethewiser wrote: | Other social experiences that you pay a lot for include country | clubs and Scientology. | dudul wrote: | There are probably cheaper ways to make friends. | alsaaro wrote: | As someone who has worked two of the most intensive blue collar | jobs, people should be wary of romanticizing blue collar work. | | Blue collar workers are expected to really work at their jobs. | White collar workers can chill if there is no work to be done, or | be sent home early with pay, or take a relaxation day and just | browse the internet and listen to podcasts. They have perks, you | see white collar workers leaving work early to attend baseball | games and do fun activities with their colleagues. | | Indeed, some white collar workers are so "underworked" they can | literally work multiple full time remote jobs. Blue collar guys | can't work remote, so expect to pay for child care and endure the | mourning commute. | | Blue collar workers aren't necessarily paid based on merit, this | is formally true if you work in a union-shop where promotions are | primarily based on tenue; if non-union there may be no promotion | path for most workers because management has a "fresh meat for | the grinder" approach to entry level staffing. | | From a social perspective people don't respect blue collar | workers. Believe that nobody who writes think pieces praising | blue collar workers wants their daughters dating a blue collar | worker or wants their children becoming them. | suzzer99 wrote: | If I was rich I would still make sure my kids worked at least | one blue collar job in their teens. There's no substitute for | first-hand experience in that world. | nonethewiser wrote: | That's pretty much all high school kids are qualified for. | With some exception. Well, unskilled labor at least. Not | quite synonymous with blue color but close. | lolbert3 wrote: | [dead] | softfalcon wrote: | My Dad made me do this. We were well off, but he pushed me to | "get a job" to buy a computer so I could study for college. I | worked as a janitor and construction labourer. Taught me | right quick that I DEFINITELY wanted to pursue a degree in | engineering or computer science. | | By contrast, my brother was never pushed in this way. He went | to school, got good grades, finished his degree, and then | just... never worked. He's a "yet to be successful" writer | now. Goodness bless his wife's heart for supporting him, | cause no one else will (ironic too, cause she's blue collar). | | Doing some real labour early on in life distills work ethic | into someone. What is shocking is how lazy people will turn | out if they aren't given that push early on so they learn | what's what. | onepointsixC wrote: | It shouldn't be unrealistically romanticized, but with | University tuitions only reaching ever higher, much faster than | inflation what other good solution is there for Young Adults to | get a career and secure their financial future? These options | being elevated precisely because of out of control student debt | and universities which face zero consequences to financially | crippling their pupils. | Avshalom wrote: | well we made university free in New Mexico, and it's free or | cheap in a lot of other places. | nonethewiser wrote: | That's great. I'm trying to figure out how it's funded. Did | they have to raise new funding? Levy new taxes? Just | wondering how they are able to afford it. I feel like this | is how colleges should be. The minimal possible tuition | required to operate. It's not like tuition increases have | gone towards retaining professors or something. | | It's pretty insane to think 15k/year for in state tuition | is "cheap." | | Edit: it seams like it's at least partially funded by | lottery tickets. Which essentially means it's just | prioritized higher than other states. Because most states | find things through lottery tickets but don't have tuition | free college. | Avshalom wrote: | New Mexico (and a lot of other states) has had a lottery | funded scholarship for decades. We've had an oil boom for | a few years and yeah mostly funded the remainder through | oil revenues/permanent fund. | | But yes the fundamental notion is that we decided to fund | it. And that's replicable anywhere, i promise, New Mexico | is q bottom 3 poorest state in the country but we decided | that college was important. Florida is awful in a lot of | ways but when I lived there in the mid 00's the Sunshine | State Scholarship covered 100% tuition and was | automatically granted for like a B+ average, an A and | some community service would get you room and board. | | Though when I said other places i meant non-US places. | brightball wrote: | Depends on the job I think. Every person I know who does any | type of home contracting work that I know of is drowning in | business and raising rates because of it. | | - HVAC | | - Plumbing | | - Electrical | | - General Contractor | | - Drywall specialists | | - Roofers | specialist wrote: | My millenial aged kid became an electrician. Mostly | residential. Mostly remodel (vs new construction). The type | of clientile that want fancy lights and legit security | systems. And now early adopters of solar, batteries, and EVs. | | He'll have plenty of work for decades. | | It is hard on the body though. Which is why he stayed | residential. So he claims; I would have guessed new | construction commercial would easiest physically. Especially | if you specialize (eg elevators). | dimal wrote: | This comment seems out of place because most of the article was | describing apprenticeships for white collar jobs, and listed a | bunch of white collar industries removing their college | requirements. | maximinus_thrax wrote: | Most people just read the headline and jump to conclusions | rr808 wrote: | Its going to be fascinating how the preference for WFH affects | the job market. I'd imagine on-location jobs to get paid more | as supply dries up and everyone wants to work from home. | Teachers/nurses/chefs were underpaid before, little wonder | there is a shortage now, I expect they need much higher wages. | harvey9 wrote: | If you're in the nurse or chef employment market then I don't | think you'll be affected by the WFH trend in white collar | work. We already have a shortage of nurses and pay is | stagnant. | nonethewiser wrote: | Teacher salaries aren't so flexible. It will just result in | lowering the hiring standards. | iLoveOncall wrote: | You are romanticizing white collar jobs as much as you claim | people do blue collar ones. | Gamemaster1379 wrote: | Isn't it a false dichotomy to suggest that a degree exclusively | leads to white collar jobs and no degree leads to blue collar | jobs? | nonethewiser wrote: | I think we need to be careful about romanticizing chilling on | the job and being sent home early because there is no work. | None of that sounds remotely sustainable and if that is your | experience I recommend improving your situation as soon as | possible. | rthomas6 wrote: | While this is all true, the article is about white collar | apprenticeships. | nemo44x wrote: | If it requires a license or certification then it's generally a | well paying career with options for the ambitious. It's why you | see so many small shops because it's very accessible to start | your own business after gaining years of experience, | reputation, and connections. | harvey9 wrote: | I worked in a call center for a while. I'd call it light blue | collar work. You don't get to listen to podcasts but these days | you might get a remote position. Physical risk is mostly | limited to RSI I guess. | mikeg8 wrote: | A call center is probably as opposite of blue collar as it | gets. The term "blue collar" comes from the blue collards | shirts factory and industrial workers used to wear, and is | now synonymous with manual labor. There is nothing remotely | close to manual labor at a call center. You just had the | lowest tier of a white collar job. | varispeed wrote: | One of the reason is that blue collar workers ceded their | leverage and bargaining power to unions, that not necessarily | have their best interest in mind - unions work in their own | interest and that depends on how well corporations can tip that | interest in their favour using brown envelopes and other ways. | | At the same time the power of workers being able to create | their own business and sell their services have been eroded | over time, to the point that in some countries it is so | regulated it is almost impossible for the workers to organise | in small businesses providing services. | wanderingmind wrote: | While agreeing with all your points, I think blue collar jobs | will get their mojo back soon, especially something not a | repeat work, as they will be one of the few jobs that will | remain after LLM and AI has automated most of the desk jobs (or | at least severely reduced the number of people needed to be | employed in them). | nonethewiser wrote: | It's also far more durable. Your startup might disappear in a | downturn but your furnace won't. | listless wrote: | At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, I'd like to be | honest for a second about why I went to college, which is to | avoid this exactly reality that you just laid out. | | I enlisted in the military after finding college to be too | boring for my taste. 3 months later I found myself doing the | hardest manual labor of my life on a riverboat for the Coast | Guard. The pay was not great and nobody cared if you didn't | feel like working or were exhausted. The system (as is the | military) is not merit based and the guys at the top were | pretty awful to the ones at the bottom. By contrast, the | officers in the coast guard had nice offices, nice crisp | uniforms, nice private rooms, nice private dining quarters, | ect. And the difference between those two (enlisted and | officer) is a college degree. | | What I learned is that I did not want to be an enlisted man. | It's a lot of very hard work for little pay and even the | highest enlisted man is still saluting the lowest officer. | | This was enough to galvanize me to go to college and finish as | quickly as I could. | | Blue collar jobs are not for everyone. They were not for me. I | realize the Coast Guard is not a perfect microcosm of the real | world, but in a lot of ways it is. Now that I have the white | collar job, I still chuckle at "mental health days" and people | complaining about being "burnt out". I chuckle because I | remember those days on the river, baking in the hot sun after | working for 36 hours straight and how much we all would have | laughed until we cried if those words had come out of someone's | mouth. | phist_mcgee wrote: | Both can still be valid. | | Mental health days are good, and burn out is a real | phenomenon. | | It's a shame that blue collar workers don't have access to | these facilities, and yes office workers are by and large | 'softer' than blue collar workers. But we should fight | corporations and organisations to provide those facilities | for _everyone_ , and not pick sides in a working class debate | (not that you did that). | | All paid workers real enemy is the capital class, and we | should never forget that. | throwawaaarrgh wrote: | That said, it's not uncommon to be able to find _good_ blue | collar jobs with good employers. | | A friend of mine worked a really shitty job for a year, to | finally find a much more cushy job, but it's graveyard shift. | Eventually they'll put him on day shift. But in the mean time | he's earning for his family, he doesn't have to do much work, | and he's studying for a degree at night. | | If you pick the right field, you have the right skills, and are | in a hot market, trades can be very lucrative and you can be | drowning in contacts. For someone who wants to be their own | boss it can be very rewarding. | DenverCoder99 wrote: | With the economic downturn coming, companies are really going | to ask themselves who's necessary. Those white collar workers | that have plenty of leisure time are going to suddenly be out | of work, and will be forced into the blue collar market, only | they are going to have to compete with blue collar workers that | have been in the market for many more years than they have. | Guess who the company's are going to hire... | | As for the white collar workers that made the cut, their job | isn't going to be as cozy. You're trading in back-breaking work | for mental-straining work with severe time constraints. | briHass wrote: | Anyone that hasn't done manual labor really has no idea how | rough it can be. I worked as an office-furniture-mover in my | early 20s (Summers in college), and some days were pretty | tough. Granted, that's pretty low on the manual labor skills | spectrum, but even for a guy in prime physical shape, it's | tiring and has elements of danger. | | Now that I'm double that age, the manual labor I've done like | rewiring my house, installing all my own HVAC equipment, and | all the yard work for a large property is much harder. I stay | sore for days, and it's easy to push too hard to get something | done and get injured or overwork my body to where my heart rate | stays elevated for hours. | | There's something to be said for working with your brain. The | worst days dealing with idiot product management and never- | ending Jira tickets don't compare to unloading a truck in a hot | warehouse or kneeling in a crawlspace for hours re-piping a | sewer line. | jletienne wrote: | >The worst days dealing with idiot product management and | never-ending Jira tickets don't compare to unloading a truck | in a hot warehouse or kneeling in a crawlspace for hours re- | piping a sewer line. | | damn i can only imagine | HEmanZ wrote: | I don't think anyone idealizes those kind of physical labor | jobs. Usually "the trades" is much more skilled manual labor: | plumbing, hvac, welding, specialized mechanic work and | repair, woodworking/carpentry, etc. | | No one says people should want a life of a mover, meatpacker, | or ditch digger. | phist_mcgee wrote: | I think that's a cultural thing. | | In Australia, trade workers are very highly paid and | generally very well respected in society (even day | labourers). | | In fact many envy 'tradies' as they're called, because they | can outearn white-collar workers pretty easily. | juve1996 wrote: | The idea that plumbers/hvac/welders etc don't have physical | wear and tear is also a myth that needs dispelled. | corbulo wrote: | There are upsides, like a certain degree of pride from really | feeling like you worked hard and going to bed truly tired. | Those are the things I miss about that kind of job. | | Going to bed as that particular kind of tired was just | awesome. | nonethewiser wrote: | In better shape too. Some jobs wear you out. But being on | your feet all day and doing moderate heavy lifting is far | better for your health than sitting down all day. | giraffe_lady wrote: | Maybe for the first decade but it's nearly impossible to | avoid accumulating injuries and eventually chronic pain | or disability over a whole career. | jseliger wrote: | As someone who has taught college, off and on, for many years, | people should also be wary of romanticizing college. | | The question is always "relative to what?" | | Anyway, the move towards apprenticeships has arguably been | underway for years: https://seliger.com/2017/06/16/rare-good- | political-news-boos... | [deleted] | twblalock wrote: | Exactly. This is why every tradesman I know wants their kids to | go to college. | [deleted] | [deleted] | micromacrofoot wrote: | [flagged] | pcurve wrote: | There's a large caveat towards the end of the article: | | "People get more specific skills in apprenticeship programs than | they do in college and while that helps them enter the labor | market with greater ease at the beginning of their careers, later | in life their skills depreciate" | | "So at age 45 or 50 or 55, these people are less likely to stay | in the labor market because their skills are less valuable." | | By contrast, a college degree offers a broader, general | education, which "makes people more adaptable and able to learn | new skills that show up later when the economy changes," he said. | throwawaysleep wrote: | I'd point out that all the people whining about being "left | behind" and blaming Mexicans for it are the blue collar types | who would have mocked college back in the day. | pakyr wrote: | > That 7% acceptance rate makes the program as selective as | Cornell University and Dartmouth College. | | Oof. I wonder if we'll start seeing Applying to Apprenticeships | forums/subreddits and 'Apprenticeship Decision Reaction - I got | in!!!' YouTube videos. | Ericson2314 wrote: | Tight labor markets for the win! I look forward to tuition coming | down and deans and admins squirming in their seats. | neilv wrote: | I'm wondering how many parents are reading this in the WSJ, and | thinking something like: "That's great that those people are | looking at paths other than college. Of course, _my_ kids are | going to college, for the college lifestyle experience, the | networking, the pedigree, and the opportunities that will open up | to them, in their rightful class. " | xyzelement wrote: | A few posts in this thread talk about the signaling value of | college and I wanted to share a thought on that. | | When's the last time you saw someone wear a suit? For me, most | people I see in suits now days are town car drivers. Because | that's who needs to signal something (reliability?) to me in a | low context environment. | | People stopped wearing suits at work, even for interviews, | because the signaling value of a suit is zero. I've read your | LinkedIn way before I met you. If you are hot shit, I already | know that. If you are not, the suit isn't going to change that. | | Likewise, back in the day the fact that you had a degree and what | school that degree was from, was a huge signal - often the sole | signal you can get on someone prior to meeting them or | considering them for a job. | | Nowadays that's just not the case. Between credible | certifications, blogs, gihub portfolios, open source projects, | etc - I can get a TON of signal on you that would be more | valuable than your college background. | | To be fair not everyone thinks this way but I think that's a | point in time thing. The signal is there and getting stronger, | it's only matter of time before it's recognized more broadly. | | And to the point, if you apprenticed in your field and had good | results, people will selfishly value that more in hiring than you | having gone to some woke school. | gnicholas wrote: | There are some industries where suits are still regularly worn, | though even in these fields (law, banking) it is less common | than before. In Silicon Valley, lawyers only wear suits when | going to court or to depositions. | paulpauper wrote: | Yeah, outside of finance, it would seem like it's the opposite, | signaling lower status and conformity. | | _Nowadays that 's just not the case. Between credible | certifications, blogs, gihub portfolios, open source projects, | etc - I can get a TON of signal on you that would be more | valuable than your college background._ | | But this is just a tiny subset of jobs though. | mtrower wrote: | > People stopped wearing suits at work, even for interviews, | because the signaling value of a suit is zero. | | In fact it's become an anti-signal in software; people look at | you funny. I actually failed an interview once _because_ I wore | a suit. | lvl102 wrote: | Being a plumber, for example, is far more lucrative for most | people. Military, police, then lawyer route is also very | lucrative. | hotpotamus wrote: | One of those is not like the other in that it requires | extensive college. It also happens to be the one that pays more | than the others. | loeg wrote: | Entry level police jobs pay better than a lot of lawyer jobs, | with a lot less debt. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Being a high-end plumber doesn't take much college. | | I joke, but most lawyers actually don't make a ton of money. | Like programming, the profession is very bimodal. By the time | you get out of law school, unless that law school is a big | name like Harvard or you get a good clerkship or associate | job, you will be heading for a career that tops out at | $200k/year if you don't burn out in the mean time. | | Plumbing, electrical work, and other trade work is weirdly | lucrative and doesn't come with nearly as much "ladder | climbing" as a legal career. Also, a mid-career trade worker | can specialize (taking only very lucrative and weird jobs) or | start to manage other tradespeople. Plumbing and the other | trades are a lot like software engineering in that sense, and | the reward for being the plumber who knows how to deal with | water pumps in high-rises is similar to the reward for being | the software engineer who can program GPUs (or some other | niche skill). For example, I happen to have met one of the | people who does the HVAC in Google NYC, and he makes the same | amount as a senior SWE at Google. | lvl102 wrote: | NYC commercial plumbers make a lot of money and it is also | one of the hardest jobs (apprenticeship) to get in the | world. | [deleted] | Kon-Peki wrote: | The trades can be excellent careers, but it doesn't do | anyone any good to pretend that they're an ideal path for | most people. | | You'll be constantly working with people making poor life | decisions that look like a lot of fun, and being encouraged | to join in. | | People with self-control issues or trouble resisting peer | pressure are going to have a lot of trouble succeeding. | They'll have very little help. | pclmulqdq wrote: | In college, you will also be constantly surrounded by | people making poor life decisions that look fun and being | encouraged to join in. That also happens at most law | firms, on Wall Street, and at many startups. | blockwriter wrote: | I think he means enlisting in the military or a police force, | accruing that job experience, rather than getting an | undergrad degree, and then going straight to law school. | lvl102 wrote: | If you start out early enough, you can be retired from law | enforcement with pension earlier than you think (typically 20 | years) which is actually a perfect time for you to go get a | law degree. | 71a54xd wrote: | If the software eng market gets really really bad I might just | become a licensed electrician and manage 4-5 electricians. I | could remember enough of the 40% of an EE degree I finished | before pivotting to CS. | | Another option is getting some BS real estate certs and | building some kind of middle-man operation where I facilitate / | officiate sales of high end homes to rich people who can't view | something before they buy (more common than you'd think). | toomuchtodo wrote: | > I might just become a licensed electrician | | Depending on state, it can take several years to become | licensed. I recommend starting sooner vs later, even if only | part time. | Chris2048 wrote: | I looked into this myself (not in US) - all paths seemed to | require full time apprenticeship.. | newaccount2023 wrote: | people learning trades under an apprenticeship can start earning | real money at 19 | | which means they can make other adult decisions not long after | | they're not only out-earning many college graduates, they are | getting four+ years of earning and investing | sergiomattei wrote: | Honestly, what a disgrace. It's almost like capitalism has an | agenda to turn every living soul into a productive machine rather | than a free-thinking, well-rounded individual. | | Education is meant to prepare you to think and live, not just | prepare you to work. I'm glad I didn't drop out in my first year | to chase the Silicon Valley dream, because I'd be a much more | manipulable, less capable individual if I did. | maxerickson wrote: | We very obviously aren't doing it, but that sort of education | should be part of high school, at least for the students that | are engaged enough to benefit from it. | | The current trend to water down what is available so that | everyone can check the 12 year box regardless of effort or | interest is a terrible waste. | mythrwy wrote: | "Free thinking and well rounded" aren't things that seem to | correspond with many current U.S college environments though. | | Colleges need to cost less. Much less. | | And they need to return to free inquiry with more education, | and less administration and propaganda and fake studies low | effort departments. | | Then what you say will be much more true and we will be in a | better place. | sammalloy wrote: | > Colleges need to cost less. Much less. | | Conservatives have waged a targeted attack on US education by | shifting the federal and state tax burden to students. This | began with Ronald Reagan and ended with the Koch network. | Conservatives intentionally did this because they believe the | traditional academic system in the US produces liberals and | democrats. By shifting the tax burden to students, they have | disincentivized free inquiry at the local level and | supplanted it with corporate-sponsored job training which | promotes hard right wing political and societal values. | | Here is the supporting evidence: | | https://starvingthebeast.net/documents/ | Axsuul wrote: | Education doesn't prepare you to live -- experience does. | Instead, you're in a bubble during those years. | logicalmonster wrote: | I think the article ignored a massive datapoint in not talking | about gender the one time it might actually be a relevant issue. | Simply put: women are going to school more and more, and many men | are turned off. Getting to the root of this social change would I | think provide an explanation. | di456 wrote: | It's nice to see this on the white collar side. | | On the blue collar side, I heard from a friend in a union skilled | labor role that the quality bar is very low for some skilled | trades in some US regions. Showing up to work on time and sober | sets someone apart a big portion of the workforce. Working hard | and eagerness to learn will go a long way in the skilled trades. | Lots of opportunities for people with a positive mindset. | rthomas6 wrote: | Rant: I feel like most people haven't really thought about why | colleges are so expensive now. It is because of the federally | guaranteed student loans. It means there's pretty much no | downside to banks loaning an arbitrarily large amount, because if | the student doesn't pay it back, the government will. And since | most 18 year old students have pretty much zero price | sensitivity, and they now have unlimited funds, colleges are free | to charge whatever they need to entice students to come to their | college. No expense needs to be spared. | | If people really cared about letting disadvantaged students go to | college, they would figure out a way to give them scholarships or | grants. Federally guaranteed student loans are a horrible and | predatory idea and they are ruining young peoples' financial | futures. If you just took away the guarantee on the loans, and | made them dischargable in bankruptcy, colleges would be forced to | compete on price again, and the price of college would start to | drop. | charlieyu1 wrote: | Am I the only one who want government intervention on college | fees? | lotsofpulp wrote: | >It means there's pretty much no downside to banks loaning an | arbitrarily large amount, because if the student doesn't pay it | back, the government will. | | Obama administration ended this in 2010: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_... | | The problem that remained, of course, is the federal government | itself lends students a blank check as long as the check is | deposited at an "accredited" university. | nonethewiser wrote: | Am I crazy or did Biden just try to pay for a bunch of | student loans? Legality still pending AFAIK. Just because | Obama may have ended one policy doesn't mean they aren't | backstopped by the government. | | Either way the point remains that the debt cannot be | dispelled through bankruptcy which makes them less risky for | banks. | lapcat wrote: | > Am I crazy or did Biden just try to pay for a bunch of | student loans? | | Forgive, not pay for. | | > Legality still pending AFAIK. | | Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court a few weeks | ago. | | > the debt cannot be dispelled through bankruptcy | | It can, actually, though it's difficult. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >Just because Obama may have ended one policy doesn't mean | they aren't backstopped by the government. | | Yes, it does. Since 2010, a lender will not be paid by the | government if the borrower defaults. | | >the debt cannot be dispelled through bankruptcy | | Yes, they can. | | https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan- | bankru... | nonethewiser wrote: | Yea, pretty much entirely due to the loan system. It's also | sustains worthless departments. | spacephysics wrote: | Fully agree. And to continue this, I think one step that would | be accepted across the aisle (in lieu of total debt | forgiveness) is to either severely cut or get rid of interest | rates on school loans. | | The compound interest working _against_ students is a major | part of the predation in these loans. | | But banks need to make money? Have a one-time interest tacked | onto the total loan amount that doesn't change over time. | | This incentivize banks to not loan out as much to just about | anyone, and thereby forcing schools to spend less on frivolous | staffing and social issues/needless expansion. | | Then, slowly reduce the federal student loan amounts to some | arbitrarily low amount, something enough for someone on the | median salary to comfortably pay back if they went to a state | school. | | Blue collar jobs are in desperate need of apprenticeships. And | there's good money to be made. But it is legit hard, physical | work. And work that needs to get more respect, because without | it, water doesn't run, lights don't turn on, roads crumble, and | buildings aren't built. | nonethewiser wrote: | > Fully agree. And to continue this, I think one step that | would be accepted across the aisle (in lieu of total debt | forgiveness) is to either severely cut or get rid of interest | rates on school loans. | | I dont understand how you agree with the post yet come to | this conclusion. If debt is the source of the problem why | encourage more of it? The point is colleges can always raise | prices because students can just take out bigger loans. This | gets worse if you get rid of interest rates. | lapcat wrote: | > Rant: I feel like most people haven't really thought about | why colleges are so expensive now. It is because of the | federally guaranteed student loans. | | I've heard this thousands and thousands of times. I suspect | that most people have heard it already too. | | > It means there's pretty much no downside to banks loaning an | arbitrarily large amount, because if the student doesn't pay it | back, the government will. | | This is a misunderstanding of the current student loan system, | which is mostly direct loans from the federal government rather | than private bank loans. That's why student loan forgiveness by | the federal government is a current issue. | [deleted] | downrightmike wrote: | Also, if the colleges give out a certain amount of grants to | students who can't afford the artificially high tuition, they | become non-profits and can bank all that cash into their | endowments. That's really the why of tuition hikes. Greed. | Thanks MIT who took this to the supreme court in 91 and fucked | all future generations! | papito wrote: | This is great news. Especially for men. It gives their lives more | meaning and a sense of self-worth. | | Great new podcast episode from Ezra Klein about this. | chitowneats wrote: | Ezra Klein lost his credibility long ago. Sad. Vox is a rag. | | Anyone here remember Wonkblog? I often miss the heady days of | the early 2010's. | | Funny how we thought we were living in tragic times back then | after the 2008 financial crisis. And sure, we were. But there | was so much more in store for us, wasn't there? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-18 23:00 UTC)