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

Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 410 posts

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#151

Post by econnors »

keiferski wrote: post #138
awillen wrote: post #7

I think this is generally a good thing. I believe there are really two positive things that can come out of going to college - either you get a name-brand degree that opens doors and gets your resume looked at, or you get useful skills that enable you to go down a particular career path (e.g. CS degree). Obviously in some cases it'll be both. The reality is it's really tough to make any case that a humanities degree…

Seems to me like further polarization. Only those that can afford the elite colleges (or be “smart” enough to get in) will be educated, while the rest will skip any personal development and just go right into the market. Educating people in the skills necessary for being good citizens doesn’t cost that much. Most of the books required are free. Yet somehow the common response to “college is expensive” is “get rid of…

> Only those that can afford the elite colleges (or be “smart” enough to get in) will be educated

This is how it is today. The only difference is people are paying $40k+ x 4years to "be educated" but they're not actually learning valuable skills.

> Yet somehow the common response to “college is expensive” is “get rid of it” instead of “make it less expensive.”

We've already tried making it less expensive. Students can get low interest rate loans to attend wherever they'd like – unfortunately that just leads to more colleges, more types of useless degrees, and increased tuition.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#152

Post by timthorn »

gonehome wrote: post #100
908B64B197 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does a classics degree cost the same as a CS degree when the market value of a classics degree is basically zero? Because it has a large numbers of applicants. It's offer and demand. > Universities also get a lot of their prestige from research and the majority of their effort is typically not spent on undergraduate education. This means professors are not typically rewarded for being (or even expected to be) e…

> "Because it has a large numbers of applicants. It's offer and demand." I suspect that's because these students are really buying prestige and a classics degree is the easiest option. > Something I've noticed and take this with a grain of salt as this is a sample=1 observation is that the better researchers (more publications, better funded labs) were generally also better teachers. This isn't a huge surprise to me…

> a classics degree is the easiest option

I'm not sure I'd agree with that assertion.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#153

Post by beastman82 »

gonehome wrote: post #145
birdyrooster wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is another one: Why do I need to complete a bachelors degree in order to join a CS master program? Why can't they test or interview folks into master's programs? Schools are precluding themselves from good candidates that didn't see the value in bachelor's degrees (often for the reasons found in this thread).

Even if you have a BS, you'll still need to get recommendations from professors you likely have not talked to in a decade (and also take the GRE).

I suspect this is not generally accurate. I have an MS in CS and had neither recs nor a GRE score

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#154

Post by thehappypm »

keiferski wrote: post #141
dgfitz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.” - Good Will Hunting

You know the theme of the movie is actually arguing against that quote, right? The conversation on the bench is the climax of the film; Robin Williams lectures Matt Damon about the limitations of book learning.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the movie is arguing against book learning, just that it's no substitute for real experiences.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#155

Post by keiferski »

econnors wrote: post #151
keiferski wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me like further polarization. Only those that can afford the elite colleges (or be “smart” enough to get in) will be educated, while the rest will skip any personal development and just go right into the market. Educating people in the skills necessary for being good citizens doesn’t cost that much. Most of the books required are free. Yet somehow the common response to “college is expensive” is “get rid of…

> Only those that can afford the elite colleges (or be “smart” enough to get in) will be educated This is how it is today. The only difference is people are paying $40k+ x 4years to "be educated" but they're not actually learning valuable skills. > Yet somehow the common response to “college is expensive” is “get rid of it” instead of “make it less expensive.” We've already tried making it less expensive. Students ca…

Yet somehow the rest of the developed world manages to offer liberal arts degrees that don’t cost $50,000 a year. The trick is: don’t spend millions on football stadiums, don’t hire hundreds of administrators, and don’t offer student loans that are impossible to default on.

It really isn’t that complicated, especially for the single wealthiest country in the history of human civilization.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#156

Post by yw3410 »

gonehome wrote: post #17
awillen wrote: post #7

I think this is generally a good thing. I believe there are really two positive things that can come out of going to college - either you get a name-brand degree that opens doors and gets your resume looked at, or you get useful skills that enable you to go down a particular career path (e.g. CS degree). Obviously in some cases it'll be both. The reality is it's really tough to make any case that a humanities degree…

There is so much broken with modern universities and incentives around pricing - why are all degrees four years? Why does a classics degree cost the same as a CS degree when the market value of a classics degree is basically zero? I wrote a little about it in the context of Lambda School, but it mostly applies: https://zalberico.com/essay/2019/04/08/lambda-school.html “The current university system in the US is a mes…

I'm not sure I agree with your article.

I can think of at least one way to structure an ISA such that incentives aren't aligned. Since it's relatively risk-free, the ISA could essentially just optimize for number of students rather than quality.

This already happens in things like recruiting where incentives supposedly align; so I don't think it would be a stretch to apply it to ISA agreements.

It's like the illustrative story of the shaman/psychic who offers to change the lottery odds for you for a cut of the winnings.

What would be interesting is if the ISA /paid/ you a living wage on completion until you found a job.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#157

Post by thehappypm »

lumost wrote: post #2

Colleges should have more price stratification than they do. At present the price difference between MIT and Umass Amherst out of state is only 41%. Both will leave a student heavily in debt to the tune of 150-300k, the difference likely doesn't materially matter to the student as they are looking at is as a ticket to a better life.

UMass Amherst is a great school, and state schools kind of see out-of-staters as cash cows. What's worse is third-tier private schools charging MORE than MIT.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#158

Post by sandworm101 »

ryandrake wrote: post #46
awillen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the four year thing is a great point. I got a psychology degree, which definitely could've been done in three (I know this because I switched sophomore year). I have friends in hard sciences whose mental health probably would've been waaaaaay better if they spent 5-6 years on their degree.

It might be different now, but I remember my computer engineering degree could have probably been done in 3 years, if not for 1. the artificial dependency/prerequisite tree requiring you to take certain courses in a certain order and 2. all the required filler courses you needed to take in order to meet the university's arbitrary definition of well-roundedness. I just want to learn how to write compliers and how a MO…

>> I just want to learn how to write compliers and how a MOSFET works, but you want me to take university-level theater? I could learn theater on my own if I wanted to.

Ya, and the acting students can learn about "compliers" online too. Outside of a garage startup, an engineer is useless if they cannot integrate into a larger team through the spoken and written word. I've run into BS students who haven't read a book since highschool. I've met compsci masters students who still panic if asked to stand up and explain their work to a large group. If a few hours learning about theatre helps solidify your language and presentation abilities, maybe it should be mandatory.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#159

Post by keiferski »

thehappypm wrote: post #154
keiferski wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the theme of the movie is actually arguing against that quote, right? The conversation on the bench is the climax of the film; Robin Williams lectures Matt Damon about the limitations of book learning.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the movie is arguing against book learning, just that it's no substitute for real experiences.

Sure, I’d agree with that.

Re: Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants

#160

Post by violiner »

gonehome wrote: post #100
908B64B197 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does a classics degree cost the same as a CS degree when the market value of a classics degree is basically zero? Because it has a large numbers of applicants. It's offer and demand. > Universities also get a lot of their prestige from research and the majority of their effort is typically not spent on undergraduate education. This means professors are not typically rewarded for being (or even expected to be) e…

> "Because it has a large numbers of applicants. It's offer and demand." I suspect that's because these students are really buying prestige and a classics degree is the easiest option. > Something I've noticed and take this with a grain of salt as this is a sample=1 observation is that the better researchers (more publications, better funded labs) were generally also better teachers. This isn't a huge surprise to me…

> a classics degree is the easiest option

You have clearly never studied Ancient Greek.

Post reply on HN