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

I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 463 posts

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#311

Post by itronitron »

gen220 wrote: post #69
hajile wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does art school make a person a better artist? I would argue not really -- especially in a day in age where so much advanced art instruction is available for free. When a company or person wants to commission you, do they look at your degree or your portfolio? The only real benefit of art college is more contacts to sell on your personality. $300,000 for that $75,000/yr college is a huge marketing budget for someone…

My girlfriend and I have had this discussion a lot, because she went to a top tier art school. I think you might be underrating three factors in your reasoning: One is the value of very direct feedback and guidance from seasoned, respected professionals. The class sizes in top art programs are very small, and most classes have a frequent, intense “critique” portion where the professor and students tear apart each oth…

So yeah, I graduated from a top-tier art school which had very high tuition but I also had considerable grants and scholarships so I was able to pay off my student loans in a few years after graduating working a blue-collar job.

I experienced four years of group critiques, and really value that as an activity. Unfortunately very few people understand or can appreciate how directly that maps to software development.

My two cents, guidance counselors just need to shut the fuck up when it comes to talking with high-school students. There is so little knowledge about what different careers actually entail that I think it is impossible for high-school students to make informed decisions about what they want to focus on.

While I think getting a BFA was the right choice for me I also think that the school environment could have been much more beneficial and productive than it was (mostly due to students in other majors being disruptive due to their drinking and partying during the week.)

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#312

Post by vorpalhex »

snowwrestler wrote: post #271
vorpalhex wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It benefits us as a country to have an electorate who can read and write and have a basic understanding of civics and history. It doesn't necessarily appear to benefit us the same way to have a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees to make mom and dad happy. There are a lot of benefits to college, but a lot of those benefits go away when college stops becoming a choice and starts becoming mandated stat…

How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? It's really striking to me how the arguments against college for all today mirror the arguments against secondary school for all 120 years ago. Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted…

We don't live in a world where "sophisticated communication" alone gets you hired unfortunately. Primary/secondary education is meant to build reasonably well rounded individuals who meet the basic skills to function well in society. Paying significant amounts of money to do that for an additional four years with no return on investment, whether it's the individual or the taxpayers at large, is silly.

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#313

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #175
pen2l wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall you have two children -- do you teach them as such? I ask for a particular reason: I think you're easily one of the smartest guys in this forum, and your children are likely to be similarly smart. So, there are two games out there for us to play -- 1) as you say, the HVAC technicians and roofers who actually make a pretty comfortable salary and 2) the uber smarts, the googlers and the founders. Even a libera…

My kids are small, so jury's out on how smart they will end up being. The approach we've taken with them so far is to ground them in sober reality. (I feel like a lot of forces, both in school and media, try to insulate kids from how the economy works. It's like getting packaged meat in the store and not knowing how animals are raised and slaughtered and processed.) We're fortunate to be able to afford many luxuries…

You're not going to pay for undergrad? We decided not to pay for grad school, but I feel strongly obligated to cover undergrad (I'm thrilled that my daughter chose Illinois over Oberlin).

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#314

Post by gwbas1c »

(After going to a fancy private school...)

IMO, Fancy private schools are like fancy luxury cars. Expensive, and get you from point A to point B just as fast as the ultra-reliable mass market cars.

The only difference is that you pay more, and you might be slightly more comfortable... And the fancy cars tend to break down more often.

In my case, my parents really pushed me towards a fancy private school. (I wanted to go to the cheaper state school.) When applying, I noticed that the state school was accredited in Computer Science, but the private school was not. While in school, I realized that my professors were clueless. A few years later, I learned that the state school had one of the best computer science departments in the world, but no one heard of my fancy private school.

I realized that my parents were clueless about how education works, but because they didn't get to go to college right out of high school, they equated cost with quality.

Some times it's nice to pay extra money to sit in traffic in a fancy luxury car; but it's only worth it if you aren't going into extensive debt for that car.

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#315

Post by tptacek »

fzeroracer wrote: post #308
tptacek wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that covers 435 Boston University grads. What about the rest of them?

Couldn't the same be said about any level of education? The law of averages means that yes, on average not everyone is going to see massive success. That doesn't meant we should deprive them the right to get an education.

What does the law of averages have to say about 435 out of 2 million? My point is that Rayiner was more right than the parent comment: AOC's election doesn't refute the point that a huge number of humanities degree recipients are durably underemployed.

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#316

Post by ThinkingGuy »

jawns wrote: post #104

Perhaps one way to help college-bound teenagers make these sorts of decisions is not by asking, "What careers most interest you?" but "What lifestyle do you want to live as an adult?" and then work backward from there. Teens who envision themselves living in a two-bedroom Manhattan apartment and dining out frequently could then be counseled to pursue jobs that earn enough to support that lifestyle. And teens who woul…

Another way to phrase this (which was put to me by my own parents): "What type of day do you want to typically have?"

(ie., indoors vs. outdoors, meeting lots of people vs. solitary environment, strict routine vs unpredictable, etc)

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#317

Post by leetcrew »

asdff wrote: post #288
leetcrew wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this sounds like a really bad way to spend my tax dollars. by all means, use them to educate the next generation of teachers, social workers, and scientists, but don't make me foot the bill for some kid to study art history for four years and still need government assistance at the end.

You are already footing the bill for the art history student to go through over 12 years of education, what's 4 more?

honestly not quite sure how to respond to this. the obvious response to "what's 4 more?" is that it's a lot more money than zero more, and each of those last four years is going to be considerably more expensive than a year of grade school.

I don't mind having my tax dollars go towards helping young people establish stable careers so they can become self-sufficient. I also don't mind paying to educate them so the can go out and help the needier members of society. I just don't think stuff like art history is a good investment of public money. I have a lot of friends who got art history degrees, which is why I use this example. they had a great time in school, but they would be hard pressed to point to any tangible benefits from the degree. most of them ended up having to pursue certifications for unrelated fields.

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#319

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

badbluesick wrote: post #252
JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may live in a bubble in this scenario growing up with parents and their friends that did painting/contracting/electrical/plumbing/flooring/etc. but I don't ever hear them as stigmatized. I think a lot of people have a real solid view of these jobs; Physically demanding with low top end rewards. Few people go into those jobs or unions and make 200k a year. People def make a livable wage, but it's very demanding work…

Most of us are not actual engineers (registered, and with a seal). We are software developers.

Which makes my point even more. It's even easier to get these jobs when you don't need years and years of school. And the salaries and perks will outpace what you get by getting into trades.

Not trying to devalue trades, they are great ways to get into a skilled job, but we can't pretend that they are silver bullets to achieving a happy, successful life.

Re: I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

#320

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #236
jki275 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I served in the military for twenty three years. My sample size is thousands of times yours. The odds are very low.

> The odds are very low. The odds are very high for post-9/11 veterans (and higher the more of their period of service is post-9/11 within that group), who are more likely to have been deployed and seen combat than veterans of earlier eras (both because of optempo and organizational changes that have increased the teeth to tail ratio of uniformed services as support functions have been moved to contracted support.) T…

This discussion interested me enough to do some casual Googling. The US military's statistics from 2011 say that only 15% of service members are actually involved in combat roles; slightly over 1 in 7. See figure 2 and figure 4 here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Improving-the-DoD's-To.... And, of course, not every service member who is in a combat role gets PTSD or injuries.

If you have current tooth-to-tail estimates, they'd be interesting to see.

Post reply on HN