Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against Tulip Subsidies

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#31

Post by ThrustVectoring »

salmonet wrote: post #8

I 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.

I still get a lot out of the systems approach to engineering from my university classes. Still, this is something that could be taught in weeks instead of years.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#32

Post by obstinate »

nmrm2 wrote: post #27
obstinate wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be about general life enrichment This is a view that rich people can afford to hold. Poor or middle class people cannot reasonably afford to pay four years of opportunity cost, plus tuition, for "general life enrichment." The Ireland control serves well here too. Are Irish medical doctors, and indeed all European doctors, less "enriched" than American ones? I'm very skeptical of this idea, but if you coul…

This is a view that rich people can afford to hold. Poor or middle class people cannot reasonably afford to pay four years of opportunity cost, plus tuition, for "general life enrichment." ...In countries that don't subsidize higher education to a point where this isn't a problem. We can debate whether the cost to society is worth it, but just because something is out-of-reach in the status quo doesn't mean it's impo…

Even in those countries, you are giving up four years of wages. The only reason any ordinary person does that is because they expect to get something out of it beyond mere life enrichment.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#33

Post by morgante »

> App Academy graduates compete for the same jobs as people who have taken computer science in college, a four year long, $200,000 undertaking.

No they don't. I have never once considered a recent bootcamp graduate to be equivalently talented and knowledgeable as a recent CS graduate. Their earnings difference certainly reflects this. (Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad.)

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#34

Post by rhino369 »

salmonet wrote: post #8

I 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.

The knowledge you gain is only part of it. You also learn how to learn by thinking critically.

So yea, that course on how to fabricate a diode using 1990's technology, wasn't useful, but when I had to learn how to manufacture NAND flash using current technology learning it wasn't nearly as hard.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#35

Post by ThrustVectoring »

morgante wrote: post #33

> App Academy graduates compete for the same jobs as people who have taken computer science in college, a four year long, $200,000 undertaking. No they don't. I have never once considered a recent bootcamp graduate to be equivalently talented and knowledgeable as a recent CS graduate. Their earnings difference certainly reflects this. (Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad.…

>Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad

I know of an App Academy graduate who went on to a job at Google.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#36

Post by nmrm2 »

obstinate wrote: post #32
nmrm2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a view that rich people can afford to hold. Poor or middle class people cannot reasonably afford to pay four years of opportunity cost, plus tuition, for "general life enrichment." ...In countries that don't subsidize higher education to a point where this isn't a problem. We can debate whether the cost to society is worth it, but just because something is out-of-reach in the status quo doesn't mean it's impo…

Even in those countries, you are giving up four years of wages. The only reason any ordinary person does that is because they expect to get something out of it beyond mere life enrichment.

Such as enough exposure to both the real world and opportunities for extended reflection thereupon to appreciate the extreme unlikelihood of being able to distinguish between "mere enrichment" and "crucial background knowledge that made the difference between success and failure" 2, 3, or 4 decades out?

The "enrichment" model isn't premised on "job training doesn't matter". It's premised on the realization that it's impossible to know what you don't know but might need to know for a job that you'll have in 2 decades but doesn't exist yet.

Examples abound of Mathematics majors who make tremendous contributions to industries they never studied formally. Many people who never obtain a deep theoretical knowledge of a field do well in life because the usefulness their industry knowledge just happens to outlive them.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#37

Post by morgante »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #35
morgante wrote: post #33

> App Academy graduates compete for the same jobs as people who have taken computer science in college, a four year long, $200,000 undertaking. No they don't. I have never once considered a recent bootcamp graduate to be equivalently talented and knowledgeable as a recent CS graduate. Their earnings difference certainly reflects this. (Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad.…

>Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad I know of an App Academy graduate who went on to a job at Google.

> I know of an App Academy graduate who went on to a job at Google.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's significantly less probable.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#38

Post by pjscott »

mrestko wrote: post #10
white-flame wrote: post #7

I 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".

His argument on this point is short enough that it's worth just quoting entire:

> (Yes, it is nice to have college for non-economic reasons too, but let’s be honest – if there were no such institution as college, would you, totally for non-economic reasons, suggest the government pay poor people $100,000 to get a degree in Medieval History? Also, anything not related to job-getting can be done three times as quickly by just reading a book.)

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#39

Post by ThrustVectoring »

morgante wrote: post #37
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Try getting a job at Google as an "App Academy" graduate vs a fresh Stanford grad I know of an App Academy graduate who went on to a job at Google.

> I know of an App Academy graduate who went on to a job at Google. I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's significantly less probable.

"Less probable" is still competing for the same jobs. Perhaps not as well, but competing nonetheless.

Re: Against Tulip Subsidies

#40

Post by nmrm2 »

mrestko wrote: post #10
white-flame wrote: post #7

I 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".

> Would as many people pay the substantial cost of college merely for the "life enrichment".

"Life enrichment" isn't (just) an ends unto itself. Coming to terms with the magnitude of one's own ignorance is well worth a year or two of sunk opportunity cost. Read through the failed startup post-mortems posted here yesterday.

And there's also real value in the ability to polish a piece of writing (for technical people) or a cursory understanding of the technical work that goes into the product (for business/marketing people).

Edit: In general, conflating students with customers leads to messed up conclusions and backwards priorities.

Post reply on HN