Against Tulip Subsidies
slatestarcodex.com
Against Tulip Subsidies
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#2The author was doing great right up until the last paragraph. His proposed solution is silly because it makes no distinction between jobs for which a university education is essential and those for which it is irrelevant. Then there is also the large grey area in between, in which a university education in certain fields might be useful but not essential. What he would do is abolish the right of those professions in which such an education is essential from applying the same standard he lauds earlier: that physicians must attend medical school. For engineers, a university education with a specialty in engineering is exactly what medical school is to physicians.
Many people here believe that a university education is not required to be a computer programmer, and I agree. But programmer is a vocation, like plumber or firefighter; it requires specialized skills and experience to do well but does not require a university education. If you spent 3 months learning one language and one or two common frameworks for making e-commerce sites, you are reasonably qualified to work on e-commerce sites for companies that use that language and framework. However, being a programmer and being an engineer are not the same; an engineer has been educated both more broadly and more deeply, and should be capable of solving larger and more difficult problems, designing whole systems, and in general should have the education and experience to understand new problems more thoroughly. It's the difference between the architect who designs a building (or one of its systems) and the construction crew who erects it. Both are essential, but they have (properly) different qualifications.
There are many other fields where some sort of education is required. I agree that many of those fields conveniently piggyback on university education (usually with a particular field of study requirement) when other similar mechanisms might do as well. But the notion that such an education is universally irrelevant is absurd.
If the author wants people without university education to be paid as much as people with it, the solution is not legislation. Instead, he should hire them.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#3People have a hard time separating the value of an entrenched institution from whether it's a good value. More school is often good, but that doesn't make it a good deal.
Every time the discussion of cs degrees comes up here it's followed by an avalanche of people saying how college gave them this and that and then a story about the one idiot they used to work with who didn't go to college.
I went to two years of community college and have never had student loan debt. I've worked on harder problems than many cs grads have. I've gone farther and actually retained more knowledge. I got a great deal taking the path I've followed.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#4Yeah, no thanks. I prefer doctors and lawyers that have gone to school rather than watching MOOC videos on a bus.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#5Yeah, no thanks. I prefer doctors and lawyers that have gone to school rather than watching MOOC videos on a bus.
You missed the point. Doctors in the US take 4 years of generally medically-unrelated undergraduate schooling before they're allowed into medical school. Why not just allow them into medical school?
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#6The author was doing great right up until the last paragraph. His proposed solution is silly because it makes no distinction between jobs for which a university education is essential and those for which it is irrelevant. Then there is also the large grey area in between, in which a university education in certain fields might be useful but not essential. What he would do is abolish the right of those professions in…
His proposed solution is silly because it makes no distinction between jobs for which a university education is essential and those for which it is irrelevant.
His solution is to evaluate people as people, not by external indicators. If it so difficult to tell if someone has a university education or not without having to explicitly ask, then perhaps it isn't as essential as you seem to think?
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#7I take a more classical view on University: It never should be "job training". It should be about general life enrichment, beyond-industry research, philosophy about the world and its workings, and broadening horizons.
Sure, people who went through that (ie, independently interested in, was recommended in or could afford it, and succeeded) tended to be more capable people. Let's roughly compare it to becoming an Eagle Scout or a Navy Seal in terms of a generally impressive life accomplishment. Shuffling everybody through the same system is useless, wastes everybody's time and money, and devalues the magic paper gotten in the end.
Many skilled professions require training, and specific training institutions are all well and good. But let's not confuse training to become a mechanical engineer or doctor as being equivalent in an employment eligibility sense to more enrichment-oriented university degrees. The latter being required to get a sales/front-desk/entry-level position is a burgeoning and absolutely needless weight on our entire society. Conflating the former with the more heady University worldview is also odd, and eliminates eligibility for those who would be great in their field but are not that compatible with academia.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#8I seldom refer to knowledge I gained from university classes. It was an important signaling device and a great time socially, but it was not an efficient use of my time as far as preparing to be successful in my career.
I would be surprised if there isn't a good alternative to higher education for bright kids 10 years from now, but I don't think it will have anything to do with legislation.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#9Yeah, no thanks. I prefer doctors and lawyers that have gone to school rather than watching MOOC videos on a bus.
In the article, he explicitly compares American doctors with Irish doctors. They both go to school, but the Americans go for about three additional years. There is apparently no real difference in medical outcomes.
Re: Against Tulip Subsidies
#10I take a more classical view on University: It never should be "job training". It should be about general life enrichment, beyond-industry research, philosophy about the world and its workings, and broadening horizons. Sure, people who went through that (ie, independently interested in, was recommended in or could afford it, and succeeded) tended to be more capable people. Let's roughly compare it to becoming an Eagl…
He somewhat address this in the article. Would as many people pay the substantial cost of college merely for the "life enrichment".