Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus • Hacker News Board

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#321

Post by asldkjaslkdj » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

steffan wrote: post #171

doorstar wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College vs. trade school isn't just about money or 'social acceptability', it's also about opportunity. A 18 year old who goes to trade school to become an electrician is going to become an electrician, they are not going to be able to change their minds in two years and become a biologist. That kid who went to college at 18 has a lot more options. They can switch majors, they can take internships, they can get their…

It seems like an easy solution to this is to have a 'trade academy' or a coalition of trade schools that allow / require you to do a rotation in each of the related trade specialties, i.e., if building / construction related, you spend a week / month / quarter learning about plumbing, electrical, framing, mechanical, landscape, etc. This would both promote understanding of related fields and give people an exposure t…

What you're describing is often done in trade high schools. Freshman will rotate through trades and pick one to continue on.

Once you need a career it doesn't really work like that though, often you're working years as an apprentice in a specified trade before you can even think about branching out on your own.

If you switch trades you're back at the bottom with apprenticeships all over again.

Someone like an English major can much easily change careers as long as they're somewhat adjacent (e.g., copywriting, research, journalism, etc) and generally starts off at a higher salary depending on their degree level. Until you hit masters level most degrees are broad generalized education.

Trades are specializations. If you're unsure about which trade you want to get into, you'd likely be better served with a business degree (which is another generalized area of study)... at least that can be applied across trades. Many tradespeople struggle with the business side of things despite being very practiced at their trade.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#322

Post by netcan » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #313

netcan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International relations is an actual subject area. It's true that we don't need that many diplomats, and that people might be just studying it out of interest... or because it sounded better than something else. Most business courses are literally fake. The stuff being taught was invented in order to be taught. Quite a lot of it is learning the meaning of terms that were invented in order to be taught. It's not that…

I agree in the distinction you're making, I just think that many of the degree programs for these older subjects are effectively acting as "diploma mills" today because their result for the student is about the same.

I guess you're right. In practice, a lot of people are just putting one foot in front of another, much of the time. Myself included, probably.

At least humanities courses teach students to write. They're basically essay writing classes.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#323

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #313

netcan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International relations is an actual subject area. It's true that we don't need that many diplomats, and that people might be just studying it out of interest... or because it sounded better than something else. Most business courses are literally fake. The stuff being taught was invented in order to be taught. Quite a lot of it is learning the meaning of terms that were invented in order to be taught. It's not that…

I agree in the distinction you're making, I just think that many of the degree programs for these older subjects are effectively acting as "diploma mills" today because their result for the student is about the same.

That's true, but GP is making a distinction between diploma mills that have some underlying substance, vs. ones that are completely fake and invented for purpose.

From the POV of a student entering a job market, anthropology or international studies may be completely useless. But the student gained real knowledge that is useful for some jobs (even if they're not pursuing them). And it can be useful in their life. To use a CS analogy, I never needed calculus or control theory during my $dayjobs, but I use them for myself, to better understand the world and occasionally on hardware hobby projects.

Meanwhile, those fake degrees are literally scams. I.e. students (and their families) are being scammed for their money. The topics are self-referential (invented to be taught), and exist in order to justify spending few years on them, so that the degree rewards putting in work - which makes that degree valuable for employers in the first place. And during the course of that degree, various entities - universities, textbook publishers, etc. - are bleeding students dry. It's not just a degree mill, it's a money printer. The degree becomes purely proof of work, and on top of wasted years of your life, you also have to pay for it.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#324

Post by ausbah » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #228

chrisjarvis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also its much easier to say every should go to school online when the person saying it most likely already got to go to college for real.

I am currently trying to convince a friend with teenagers that the 'going away' part of 'going away to college' is part of the entire point. Keeping your kid in town is just infantilizing them. And god knows we have enough enfants terribles in the world, and especially in tech. She's going to end up with a 28 year old son still living at home playing video games all day, while his degree rots away, wondering what wen…

sorry, but this is wildly out of touch. going to a local university while living at home is not infantilizing anyone. it is a very financially smart and sensible plan that meets the needs for many people's goals in life. balancing classes, extracurriculars, a job, and other college activities that don't depend on your living situation is more than enough of sampling what "adulting" is like

not everyone needs to, or can, move across the country for school living in their own place right out of high school

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#325

Post by asldkjaslkdj » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #293

jacquesm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether they'd be willing or not is another matter. I know a few though, people that have very high levels of secondary education working trades or other simple jobs because it keeps their stress levels down.

> working trades or other simple jobs because it keeps their stress levels down. Yes! People take "simple jobs" like hauling trash or cleaning sewers or welding pipes because it's stress free! Unlike those high-stress jobs at Facebook where you take the free party bus to the office, get free food, drink, gym, yoga, and massages, and even have internal message boards where you're encouraged to post about how horrible…

You're cherry picking examples to suit your narrative.

For every person working at a FAANG you can probably find 1,000 working in a place with the same shitty working conditions most people are subjected to.

As a counter example cops can make $200k a year doing detail work (standing around) and retire with a pension after 20 years. There are similar situations (with lesser pay) for a lot of city and state level civil service.

There are shit jobs that will wear you down in every field. They're the jobs most people are working.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#326

Post by beaner » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

JamisonM wrote: post #314

beaner wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. And the market is telling us that more jobs in these fields are not needed, while STEM has endless technological problems to address and high salaries for the taking.

The solid ROI on arts degrees is the market saying that they are needed, no?

I think it's a tricky question, because the provided link seems to distinguish liberal arts schools from other non-technology, non-business schools, and I don't know how that distinction is being made. It could be that their subjects are largely similar, but the schools being explicitly marked as "liberal arts" schools are of an elitist class separated by grades and/or family privilege. And that these aspects of the student rather than the content of the degree are what account for the return. Certainly some liberal arts degrees are warranted by the market, but if what's happening is that all the ones from a second rank of colleges are simply not being considered as liberal arts, then that kind of misrepresents what's going on.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#327

Post by timr » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #263

timr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So even assuming that the personal danger is acceptable (which isn't a given; 300 deaths sounds like a horrible and avoidable tragedy to me) death figures among healthy 20-somethings don't capture the full risk of keeping a university open." Well now you're shifting the goalposts. The comment was that the students are at risk. Someone shows you that they're not at risk, and you pivot to danger to "townsfolk". Here's…

> The comment was that the students are at risk. Someone shows you that they're not at risk, and you pivot to danger to "townsfolk". Assuming they're not stupid, evil, or politically conservative, the students are probably concerned about the risk of spreading the illness and the attendant harm that could cause, as well as what it could do to themselves.

That's fine. Those students are more than welcome to make choices for themselves. We don't need let them decide for everyone.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#328

Post by timr » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

room500 wrote: post #261

timr wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only 300 people have died because of the policies that were put in place. Relaxing those policies will increase that number." This is an assumption, and it's a bad one. The paucity of deaths in young people is true around the world, regardless of lockdown policy. Sweden, for example, does not have a higher proportion of young people dying.

Yes, it is an assumption. Unfortunately, this situation is unprecedented, so everything we do has to be an educated guess. I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;) It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. https://academic.oup.…

I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;)

What assumption is that? I stated a fact that you can verify with a Google search.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#329

Post by mikem170 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

randcraw wrote: post #219

mikem170 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we know that there are a much greater percentage of people who will experience significant health problems, potentially with life-long impacts This seems to be an alarmist statement. Any disease with a fever component will leave a small percentage with long term damage, same for diseases affecting the lungs. From https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... >COVID-19: Lasting damage to the lungs,…

> It does everyone a disservice to spread exaggerated fear. And so does poo-pooing risk when you have no actual numbers. Every infectious disease expert I've heard from is puzzled by this disease. The variance of individual outcomes from expected norms is simply impossible to predict. Taking unnecessary risk is the act of a fool. If you or your close ones invite even a small chance of a dire outcome, then you play it…

There are lots of numbers on the flu and other infection diseases that cause the same problems. Here's a paper I just looked up for another comment talking about heart inflammation from influenza, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.685...

> During the Sheffield, England influenza epi-demic from 1972 to 1973, the cases of 50 consecutive patients who were initially diagnosed as mild cases and were treated on an outpatient basis were followed. Transient electrocardiogram (ECG) changes were seen in 18 patients, and long-lasting changes were seen in 5 patients.

Granted I learned more than I wanted to know about the complications around influenza, and that the numbers are more significant thanI though, but my opinion is reinforced that covid is nothing out of the ordinary for these types of viruses.

>If you or your close ones invite even a small chance of a dire outcome, then you play it safe. And you hope your good neighbors will be likewise considerate.

You asked me about numbers, and now I would like to ask you the same question. What do you mean by even a small chance? Does that small chance include the risk every year from the flu, with all the related complications and possible long term effects? We don't shut the world down every year for that.

I'm not meaning to "poo-poo" risk. I want to quantify it. I'd like an intellectually rigorous response to the situation. I feel like the danger from covid relative to other similar diseases has been exaggerated, so many alarming headlines, for the clicks, not put into context, etc.

Re: Stanford cancels plans to bring half of undergrads back to campus

#330

Post by blahbhthrow3748 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #274

netcan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat different take. The student debt problem is not really related to the college format. The format existed in earlier decades, exists in other countries and exists in K-12 education without runaway costs and student debt. It's mostly a matter of policy. The US' method to expand third level education to most of the population was by government backed and/or subsidized loans, without price controls. This caused…

> At least, these tend to be real subjects that students are actually interested in. I don't think that whether real students are interested in a topic is related to how well that choice of study does for them in the real world. International relations, anthropology, women's studies, psychology, etc., are all real subjects that students are actually interested in. Some small fraction of the people who study them actu…

STEM includes hard science and mathematics - is there that much more demand for math or biology majors than for any of the social sciences? A math undergrad seems just as likely to end up in a call centre or as an office manager