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

How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 247 posts

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#171

Post by SadCanadian »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #106

Maybe someone on HN can answer this for me. Why are these articles about the American system written as if they are new developments. Nothing in this article sounds any different from how things were 50 years ago, and probably earlier. I am guessing that 1. more kids are going to college today than 50 years ago (that should be a good thing) and competing for spots at top schools (thus more competition) and 2. the Ame…

Class structures existed for centuries in America (despite being branded a classless society), but the difference now is that, because economic growth has been stagnant for 5 decades and running now (as you allude to), the middle classes have little hope of cracking into the sectors where the growth is occurring (like in high finance).

The key thing is there's nothing for these grads to do except compete with one another for a share of increasingly limited spots.

It's new in the sense that it's really the first time that Americans will have to acknowledge that one of the tool that was supposed to be the champion of social mobility (education) is no longer working well. And, that America will probably resemble the very thing it loathed: a sort of immobile society where your prospects will be increasingly determined by your parents position in society. Basically a lot like Britain, except with the veneer of American Exceptionalism.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#172

Post by DubiousPusher »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #32
DubiousPusher wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very troubled by this. Because humanities degree holders are the true carriers of our cultures. Local history, news and art you won't find on the internet. You can't read about my town's coal history on wikipedia. A local historian does that. These people are the ones that work with the primary sources, sifitng them and passing on the highlights. As we squeeze these people down we lose our own selves. We need a…

No they aren't. They hold worthless knowledge that literally anybody capable of reading and writing can do. They aren't some sort of priestly class that are only allowed to read and edit Wikipedia pages. They just wasted time getting a degree in something that people only do for fun to satisfy they're curiosity. There is absolutely no skill in being able to read and write about something if everyone else is capable o…

You should visit a local historical society or museum and have them walk you through how they do some of their work.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#173

Post by zhdc1 »

J253 wrote: post #145

I have a (perhaps unpopular) pet theory that college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades. In its current direction it feels like it’s becoming more about gaming the system. Those who do the “best” are really just the best at looking like the best. I saw so many of my peers in college “learning” strictly for the sake of getting good grades, not to understand the material conceptu…

> I have a (perhaps unpopular) pet theory that college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades.

This has been an on going prediction since, and likely before, television became a thing.

Universities are worthwhile because you're surrounded by other driven students. The social aspect is at least as important as the quality of educational instruction, and remote learning isn't going to replace that any time soon. It isn't even a good replacement for in-person instruction, but at least it's starting to become a workable alternative.

> future generations will look less favorably at taking on a huge debt burden to attend in-person college

I agree here, but it will likely mean that student pick less expensive universities or some other in-person alternative (e.g., in the states, community college for two years -> two years at a state university).

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#174

Post by nitwit005 »

GPerson wrote: post #124
nitwit005 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain topics that get reliable readers, despite having been true for the last 100 years or so. You can publish them on a slow news day. Stories like "the plight of the small farmer", "child care is awfully expensive", and so forth.

This is an interesting theory but I think it is too cynical. Dan Markovits has written on this topic for the last several years.

That's viewing things from the author's point of view, while I was suggesting the publisher's motive for wanting an article with this sort of theme. Ultimately the publisher is maximizing readership, and thus revenue.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#175

Post by zhdc1 »

FriedrichN wrote: post #149
J253 wrote: post #145

I have a (perhaps unpopular) pet theory that college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades. In its current direction it feels like it’s becoming more about gaming the system. Those who do the “best” are really just the best at looking like the best. I saw so many of my peers in college “learning” strictly for the sake of getting good grades, not to understand the material conceptu…

>I saw so many of my peers in college “learning” strictly for the sake of getting good grades, not to understand the material conceptually. I can absolutely identify with this. I've seen way too many class mates get way higher grades than me without even really knowing any of the concepts they're supposed to be showcasing. Meanwhile all I ever had was conflict with teachers. My theory is that school is simply aimed t…

This is nothing new. These sentiments have always been common.

Clips from a well-known 1960s documentary with context from one of the filmers (Sixteen at Webster Groves): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giQxUkZ4Anc

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#176

Post by pmezard »

hikingsimulator wrote: post #137
gryn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for ENS and polytechnique, I remember reading that a very large number of the accepted candidates for such schools came from a handful of rich kids high schools and can be traced back to a handful of rich kids Kindergartens. (I can't find the article)

Wealth helps tremendously indeed. Usually, before accessing those schools, you have to study for 2 years in a preparatory program called a Classe Préparatoire. Point is, the best can be quite expensive. The most egregious thing though is that during school holidays in France, some private organisms (in Paris) offer 1 or 2-week cramming programs for €10-15k a pop where you get tutored by the very people that write the…

TL;DR: wealth helps a lot, but not in the "parents paid the diploma" direct way. More because good social status helps putting people in the right track. Hard work is still required IMHO (at least for the engineering track, I do not know about the business schools variant).

Wealth definitely helps in the sense it gives you a better environment to support you during your studies. About it helping you being tutored by fancy private organisms, this is true but I think it applies more to the "lower" part of the Grandes Écoles & co pyramid. You are not going to enter Polytechnique or ENS solely because of that. It still requires a lot of work or talent.

About the set of high schools/classes préparatoires funneling a large part of candidates to top schools, that is definitely true. But again it requires a lot of work, you are not going to move through Henri IV or whatever to ENS only because your parents have money. But receiving a good education from birth and having family and friends who knows how the system work, because they moved through it themselves, helps a lot.

But wealth helps because these places are usually in large cities (and mostly in Paris), which are expensive to live in. And to get there you have to come from good/prestigious high schools and have good grades, which again living in a wealthy family helps a lot.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#177

Post by SadCanadian »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #11
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #6

A lot of invention and innovation in the past few decades is focused around doing more with less - e.g IKEA furniture made out of wood shavings vs. real wood years ago, apartments made more efficient and compact vs. big houses years ago, more biking and public transit vs. enough roads to fit everyone years ago. My theory is that on a macro level, the world keeps getting more competitive because we keep on churning ou…

Economically speaking it is not necessarily a fact that more people will drive the living standard lower. That is basically a disproved 19th century theory. In fact, more people makes a healthy economy richer overall. Because in a healthy economy, each added person contributes more than their economic cost. This creates net wealth for the society. Some of the problem we're seeing with costs is coming from the opposit…

The key thing about the theory was that it was disproven when the industrial revolution took off. Incredible amounts of innovation and production in 2 centuries that did more for humanity's living standards than the previous millennium.

The key question is: what will power this sort of growth in the future? What sort of innovation will there be?

Malthus underrated the prospects of new technologies. The risk today is that we are overrating how impactful new technologies will be. This is the crux of the issue.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#178

Post by tester34 »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #113
usaar333 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a 0.95 R^2. That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower with other factors more significant ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). > The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism. Huh? Prior to tests, schools wer…

> That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with…

>Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist.

Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke?

What's your alternative then?

>The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and oppression that those who came before up put up.

Skew the odds then?

A lot of people do that, but it requires putting effort which in majority of the cases is what people lack - determination, desire and other.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#179

Post by DreamScatter »

Clewza313 wrote: post #117

> In law, for example, of the roughly 2,000 people admitted to the top-five law schools each year, no more than a smattering choose to enroll in a law school ranked outside the top 10. Am I the only one whose parser is throwing a syntax error for this sentence? "People already admitted to top-5 law schools don't choose to go non-top-10 schools instead"?

Maybe that flawed logic / grammer you point out is itself a symptom of what the article is discussing (failure of education).

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#180

Post by DubiousPusher »

SadCanadian wrote: post #177
DubiousPusher wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economically speaking it is not necessarily a fact that more people will drive the living standard lower. That is basically a disproved 19th century theory. In fact, more people makes a healthy economy richer overall. Because in a healthy economy, each added person contributes more than their economic cost. This creates net wealth for the society. Some of the problem we're seeing with costs is coming from the opposit…

The key thing about the theory was that it was disproven when the industrial revolution took off. Incredible amounts of innovation and production in 2 centuries that did more for humanity's living standards than the previous millennium. The key question is: what will power this sort of growth in the future? What sort of innovation will there be? Malthus underrated the prospects of new technologies. The risk today is…

We don't explicitly need growth though. Average productivity is still what it is (very high) even without growth.

The thing growth gives you is the ability to increase the average person's standard of living without increasing their portion of the pie.

In other words, growth is how you can make people's lives better without redistribution. I think it's no coincidence that we've seen this period of slower growth in developed economies (aside from the 90s) at the same time we've seen stagnation in the standard of living. And also we see an increased interest in redistribution as an answer.

Post reply on HN