Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam Altman and his buddies are incredibly out of touch with the real world. In a related tweet, he said [0]: > A version of college replacement I'm super interested in: Find the smartest and most driven 18 year olds in the world, and give them 'tenure'--say a decade+ of salary, resources to work on whatever they want, and a smart peer group--in exchange for small % of future earnings. Completely agree with your state…
Didn't he also make a lot of money already? So at least also good at making money.
I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#982Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gross oversimplification. In 1960s when states funded a higher proportion of things, students in wheelchairs might have no place to pee and women were not guaranteed same opportunities as men. Even into the 1980s buildings were simple brutalist concrete dungeons and A/C was not an expectation; there was no campus IT; no plethora of career placement systems; counseling office; Title IX compliance office; free medical…
I kind of miss brutalist dungeons. Are there any good ones you can visit?
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#983Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Just for what it's worth, Australia has a taxpayer-funded student loan scheme (HECS) and the obscene fees you see in the US simply aren't a problem here. A full 4-year Electrical Engineering degree from Monash cost me about A$30k back in 2012. It looks like now they're around $40k. Even for an arts grad, this is something one could comfortably pay off in 2-3 years. What do you mean that "the obscene fees you see in…
>What do you mean that "the obscene fees you see in the US simply aren't a problem here"? Typically when people talk about the ridiculous cost of college in the US, they bring up these obscene $200k bills that can never be paid off. I agree that $40k isn't ridiculous, and small change compared to the opportunity cost of not working.
The worst case is when you drop out of school, don’t get the degree, but still have the loan. There’s nothing good you can do about that right now except flee the country.
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#984Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t find out until many years after graduating that the US is sprinkled with what are known as Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), including a large number of well-regarded 4-year colleged which don’t have graduate programs, the professors don’t do (much) research (but do have PhDs generally) and the hiring and evaluation decisions are 90% based on teaching. These institutions are usually on the small s…
How many of them have strong STEM programs though? My partner went to a PUI, but it was firmly a liberal arts school (not that you can't move into STEM with a liberal arts degree). I chose my own undergraduate school because it had a decent engineering program but obviously was a research university. The two I can think of are Harvey Mudd and Rose Hulman.
This is related to the HN person yesterday asking whether going $180K in debt for MIT would be worth it?
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#985Earlier quoted context omitted.
The professor job is an absurd ask: - Enterprise sales rep with a $500k-$1M annual quota (aka grants). - R&D manager of a team comprised almost entirely of junior employees - Lecturer and administration for teaching. - Administrator & volunteer within the department, chair roles for key academic conferences, and editor on major journals -- all to check the "service" box for tenure. - Because they aren't a proper CEO,…
> (ie 50%+ of grant contracts going to university overhead!). This is why a lot of grants are made in-kind rather than in cash. Give the research $750K in equipment instead of $1M in cash where the university pockets $500k of it.
In my experience, in-kind grants mostly occur when the "giver" has/gets the "gift" cheaply. For example, NVIDIA gave out tons of graphics cards, but they certainly don't pay full retail for their own product. This lets them give you a grant "worth" $5k, but costs them substantially less. Ditto pharma companies, which may not even sell the thing given.
It seems clever to give the funder a shopping list, and then get an "in-kind" grant for exactly what you want. However, many places will waive/reduce indirect costs on equipment (which, per the NIH is $5000 and lasts for >1 year).
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#986Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfounded. There are billions more literate people than in Einstein's day.
To their point, it doesn’t matter how many literate people there are if there aren’t more Einsteins.
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#987Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t find out until many years after graduating that the US is sprinkled with what are known as Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), including a large number of well-regarded 4-year colleged which don’t have graduate programs, the professors don’t do (much) research (but do have PhDs generally) and the hiring and evaluation decisions are 90% based on teaching. These institutions are usually on the small s…
How many of them have strong STEM programs though? My partner went to a PUI, but it was firmly a liberal arts school (not that you can't move into STEM with a liberal arts degree). I chose my own undergraduate school because it had a decent engineering program but obviously was a research university. The two I can think of are Harvey Mudd and Rose Hulman.
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#988Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the other comment points out, the obsession with the flaws of the SAT completely ignores the fact that every single other method of evaluation is even worse, both at identifying promising students and at equity. If you take it away, colleges will happily admit loads of "well-rounded" students with tons of expensive extracurriculars. They will be racially as balanced as possible, but their family incomes will all b…
AFAIK, the SAT is biased against poorer students, including in its structure, in its content (maybe they've fixed that), and because wealthy test-takers can afford test prep courses. What makes you say that the SAT is the best option for poor applicants?
The idea that the SAT is inherently biased against poorer students is controversial. AFAIK, the evidence for this requires advanced statistical analysis and expert interpretation and isn't widely accepted as definitive. Even among those experts who accept this evidence, there doesn't seem to be any clear sense of what is causing this bias or what can be done about it. It simply isn't the case that the SAT has some glaring bias that can easily be rectified, like questions assuming knowledge of water polo and horseback riding. Student skills in things like reading and math do not exist in a vacuum, but depend on prior exposure and knowledge, which robustly correlates with family/neighborhood/school environment and thus socioeconomic status. Efforts to create tests that are completely independent of those things have not produced useful results.
Quality studies show that the benefit of test prep is modest to moderate, on the order of 30-100 points, and almost all of the benefit is achieved within 8 hours of preparation. Even that benefit is not widely accepted as simply retaking the test can increase scores by 60 points. [1] There is no evidence that expensive private tutoring leads to better outcomes than self-study with free alternatives such as Khan Academy. [2]
> What makes you say that the SAT is the best option for poor applicants?
It's helpful to look at it more as the "least bad" than the "best" -- we need to stop focusing exclusively on the issues with the SAT and think about the actual alternatives. For example, essays, extracurriculars, and prestigious brand-name private school affiliations are all valued by prestigious colleges, and can be bought legally and very easily by rich families. It is much harder to buy a high SAT score. To buy a high SAT score, a family could pay someone to impersonate their child, but this is very risky as the recent Varsity Blues scandal showed.
Suppose we put ourselves in the shoes of a bright-but-poor high school student. We need a way to make ourselves stand out. We can sign up with Khan Academy or download some SAT prep materials at the public library and prepare for a few hours... or we can try to get into an expensive private school, get a private college essay consultant, join a rich-kid sport, take a trip to Africa, and other things that rich kids do to burnish their applications. Which of these seems more practical to you?
If you look at the criticism of the SAT from universities, I think you'll find that they are mostly interested in attacking the SAT in isolation, not comparing with the alternatives. Comparing with the alternatives would require shedding light on their opaque and subjective admissions processes and the way in which those processes favor the rich. On the contrary, research suggests that leveraging standardized tests, and increasing participation in them, tends to open doors for poor students relative to status quo [4][5].
It's interesting that they are so favorable to a change which will make their processes even more subjective and opaque, especially given their history of using subjective and opaque processes to exclude undesirable minorities (yesterday Jews [3], today Asians). Although they have proven themselves untrustworthy, they are not interested in increasing transparency and objectivity of admissions processes. I think we should be hesitant to accept their reports and recommendations as being in completely good faith, given their strong interest in (and consistently observed behavior of) recruiting as wealthy a class as possible each year.
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/explore/special-sections/sat-pr...
[3] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_kara...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/upshot/how-universal-coll...
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#989Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I was told as a grad student that I've never forgotten is, "Nobody has ever won a Nobel prize for having happy students". At the time, I was struggling to keep up with the marking demands of a new (i.e. This was the first year it was taught) course I was TA'ing. I had around a hundred students and each one was generating 10-20 pages of handwritten lab reports per week. Student writing varied from human type…
Quoted post unavailable.
I'm not going to ban you right now, but please stop doing this so we don't end up having to.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Re: I think US college education is nearer to collapsing than it appears
#990Sam Altman makes a lot of grandiose predictions and statements. For example, in 2019 he said “Human radiologists are already much worse than computer radiologists. If I had to pick a human or an AI to read my scan, I’d pick the AI.” [0] However, most people with domain knowledge in this space still would not want their scan not to be read by a human. The AI radiology apps are generally narrowly focused and useful for…
It's no fun to make predictions in your field because you know plenty of reasons why things don't work, compared to outsiders who fill in from imagination the missing bits.