Live data from Hacker News

ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

economist.com

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#141
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a self taught-programmer, I'd be interested in why HN thinks >it's on the short list of exceptions, not the rule. As an example, I've fiddled around with circuit design. I'm not good at it, but I can make some basic stuff. It feels a lot like fiddling around with linux early in my career, and I'm not seeing any obvious point where it suddenly becomes more difficult to learn the skill. It's just a bit harder to get…

>, and I'm not seeing any obvious point where it suddenly becomes more difficult to learn the skill. In terms of pure theory, I can see what you're saying but a lot of STEM curriculum includes lab work that's hard to replicate for an auto-didactic. For applied sciences like biology, electrical engineering, applied physics (not theoretical physics), the universities will have expensive equipment that students can use…

"engineering students working on high speeed GHz digital circuits can use $100k Agilent scopes."

Something interesting to think about is as a hobbyist I'll be buying that $100K scope at a hamfest or off ebay in about 10 or 20 years for basically the cost of shipping. Then at home purely as a hobby I can entertain myself cheaply and endlessly doing stuff that was cutting edge in 2016, which is still going to be an enormous market in 20 years.

There are two problems. One is that companies like to think they're cutting edge. So gaining expert level skills on, say, late 70s high speed TTL is not interesting to hiring managers. The second problem is companies that like to think they're cutting edge, almost always are not, unless they're household names. Everyone knows google uses go and python but "the rest of the real world" runs on perl and cobol, like it or not. Oddly enough the hiring managers often don't know how far behind the times they are, so you get the equivalent of an interviewer bragging about the EE equivalent of planning to implement CVS someday soon, or trying that newfangled agile design methodology someday, not knowing their plans for the future are already obsolete in the market. Half of companies are below median, after all.

TLDR is there's a lot of posing in stem, and at least some of the people doing the loudest posing are actually doing stuff right out of 1975, if not earlier. Usually because if something makes money there's no need to fix it solely to strike a stunning pose. In public of course the image will always be that theres no way we couldda dunnit without that $500K budget, partially to intimidate competitors, partially to appear more powerful, mostly just traditional neophilia.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about the IB program? My daughter is on a track that leads to IB in 11th grade and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I did IB. It's the best you are going to get in the US. What are your reservations?

Time demands. It sounds like the program is a lot of work and I don't think having school crowd out everything else is necessarily healthy.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these days when STEM is so promoted, I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM. Perhaps there are some subjects which fall in this category. But I know, for instance, with music theory and composition, the heavy stuff can get fairly complicated and technical very fast. Certainly few people would be dismissive of the technical trai…

"I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM." It's not that the subjects are lightweight fluff, it's that the students are disproportionately so. STEM is fairly objective, so it's comparatively hard to hide your lack of depth. But if you just want to go to college as a social signal, and a ticket to 4 years of parties, then arts and h…

From my experience what you are describing is exactly psychology, which is a STEM field.

And humanities disciplines are quite dissimilar as are STEM disciplines. Philosophy is generally fairly rigorous and difficult, communication is often not except when it encompasses fields like journalism, etc.

I think the bar for mediocrity is much lower in the humanities, but the bar for top-notch excellence is much higher. When two students complete an exam correctly, they are both great students who wrote down the correct answers as instructed. When two students write papers, you can actually tell that one of them is genuinely brilliant.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#144
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way more "free" in Europe than the US though.

is it? how does one measure that? do they have some super secret method to running a university more cheaply than the us? is anything sacrificed in so doing? how do reputations stack up? these are complicated issues, and pretending one's free and the other's an outrageous ripoff is a ridiculous simplification.

Well some quick googling shows that for a lot of EU countries EU students don't have to pay tuition fees:

http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#145
This is very encouraging to read. I have had a sense of this all along - that which college you attend has very little to do with your intelligence or your capabilities. In my opinion it has more to do with how much your parents make then anything else. E=mc^2 wether you go to Princeton or you go to Caldwell Community.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#146
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add the observation that it is way easier to go to college and get a formal education in science, math, or engineering, and pursue an ongoing adhoc self-directed education in the arts and humanities in your remaining decades of life, than the other way around. Yeah, not really. There is a huge difference between reading a book by yourself, and reading a book then discussing it with a room full of other intelligen…

I disagree slightly. Mostly because you can find dozens of commentaries and critical analyses of great works of fiction to complement your reading. These are essentially transmitting the same info a knowledgeable teacher/group of classmates would. The resources for math and science are also vast, but often require access to specialized laborites/equipment at the upper levels.

Uhh... no they're not "essentially the same." The value of being in the same room as knowledgeable people is interacting with them. If there's something that is unclear or that you want to delve into, you have an interactive way to do so.

This whole "self-learning is just as good!" is ridiculous. If it was, it would already rule the world. People trust accreditation for a reason.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#147
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 7.8% line is to be taken with a grain of salt though. If you decide to invest all the theoretical college money and work without said education you'll (hopefully) still earn >0$. It would have also helped if the article said what degree/how long it takes (BA, MA) and what the investment cost for the degree actually is (provide median or something). A typical BA takes 2 years and is in the ballpark of 50k$ on the…

> A typical BA takes 2 years Do you mean 4 years? It's extremely rare for someone to get their Bachelor's in fewer than 4 years.

Well, the Economist is an British magazine. English and Welsh Bachelor's degrees are generally 3 years, whereas Scottish ones are 4 years.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#148
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM." It's not that the subjects are lightweight fluff, it's that the students are disproportionately so. STEM is fairly objective, so it's comparatively hard to hide your lack of depth. But if you just want to go to college as a social signal, and a ticket to 4 years of parties, then arts and h…

From my experience what you are describing is exactly psychology, which is a STEM field. And humanities disciplines are quite dissimilar as are STEM disciplines. Philosophy is generally fairly rigorous and difficult, communication is often not except when it encompasses fields like journalism, etc. I think the bar for mediocrity is much lower in the humanities, but the bar for top-notch excellence is much higher. Whe…

That's a good point, and you could make similar claims about economics and political science (do those last two count as STEM?).

Oh well. I guess colleges want money, and they will find a way to make their customers happy.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#149
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what other people do? What are you going to do? Are you incapable of leveraging from an intro course in Japanese into anything you want? If so, why do you think you're going to do any better in a formal environment either? It's not like they crack open your head and pour pure distilled knowledge into it while you passively sit back and just take it in. Also, I think people are fundamentally missing the comp…

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match about what discipline is harder. The point is that learning Japanese at a university is not an experience that could be easily duplicated somewhere else and that there are probably other "soft" disciplines of which the same could be said.

Learning Japanese is way easier if you just go to the country and live there. I'll guarantee if you go with the same amount of money invested in college you'll learn the language faster.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#150
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM." It's not that the subjects are lightweight fluff, it's that the students are disproportionately so. STEM is fairly objective, so it's comparatively hard to hide your lack of depth. But if you just want to go to college as a social signal, and a ticket to 4 years of parties, then arts and h…

From my experience what you are describing is exactly psychology, which is a STEM field. And humanities disciplines are quite dissimilar as are STEM disciplines. Philosophy is generally fairly rigorous and difficult, communication is often not except when it encompasses fields like journalism, etc. I think the bar for mediocrity is much lower in the humanities, but the bar for top-notch excellence is much higher. Whe…

>From my experience what you are describing is exactly psychology, which is a STEM field.

From my experiences, the rest of the STEM field doesn't take the social science parts (psychology, athropology, economics, political science) very seriously or even consider them STEM on a colloquial level (even if "officially" they are).

Post reply on HN