Live data from Hacker News

The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

pearlleff.com

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#51
post #10

If you like college good for you. But the first two years are bullshit. The last two, you should be able to learn them on the job for many career tracks and test them out. Articulate for me exactly why biology, chemistry, philosophy,etc... are neccesary for a Compsci or IT degree? Because the british said so many centuries ago is not a good reason. Neither is "what about the profits of colleges". We put up with 12 ye…

> Articulate for me exactly why biology, chemistry, philosophy,etc... are neccesary for a Compsci or IT degree?

In Europe (AFAIK this is very broadly true) you're expected to have covered these in high school, and university is for focusing on a single field (and its prerequisites, so lots of math in engineering fields, e.g.)

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#52

> Imagine learning to play music by fooling around with a piano and discovering that some keys sound good together. Even if after a while you begin to structure music that sounds halfway decent, if you ever want to get good and collaborate with other musicians, you're going to have to start from the beginning and learn theory, chords, and musical notation. Sure, like Bowie. Or Prince. Or McCartney. Wait..

What is your evidence.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#53
post #10

If you like college good for you. But the first two years are bullshit. The last two, you should be able to learn them on the job for many career tracks and test them out. Articulate for me exactly why biology, chemistry, philosophy,etc... are neccesary for a Compsci or IT degree? Because the british said so many centuries ago is not a good reason. Neither is "what about the profits of colleges". We put up with 12 ye…

Anyone making an argument against the value of philosophy usually fails because they don't have the analytical/argumentative toolkit to construct a good argument. Precisely because they didn't study philosophy. And if they had, they probably wouldn't be making the argument in the first place.

Most people can't construct a valid argument unless they have taken philosophy classes in college? That sounds like your argument is rather shoddy.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that people who do that kind of thing just don't get it. Things have changed. It's a much more high-stakes world for young adults than it was when they were that age. It's very easy for middle class kids to now end up poorer than their parents, which was much rarer for the boomers and early gen x. Give your kid every advantage you can.

Giving your child a gradual introduction to the real world is giving them an advantage. Coddling them through a perpetual adolescence isn’t doing them any favors; it’s setting them up for exactly the kinds of failures you’re referring to.

The problem is that financial pressures never improve people. Sure, extreme financial abundance can turn a person into an insufferable, amoral twat; but no one's life has ever been improved by deprivation.

Should a kid spend a summer during high school working a "regular" job so as to understand what bullshit average people have to go through (and to do everything possible not to end up in such circumstances)? Sure. Why not? It's a useful experience, when you're 17, to see what life is like for most people.

On the other hand, Game Theory 101 tells us that forced plays are often lousy moves, and that having more options entails higher expectancy. If your kid, as an adult, has to work crappy jobs that damage his career, while others get to make choices that enable them to have better futures because they aren't worried about month-to-month bullshit, then he's going to end up losing through no fault of his own... and, see, this is commonplace. We aren't actually smarter than the poors (the real poors, not non-billionaire "poors"). We just ended up getting dealt better options, whereas they had to operate constantly under constraint.

If you can take stupid obstacles out of your child's life, you should.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#55

An undergraduate degree has value, but the costs should be considered, and it should all be weighed against the alternatives. For different people, the outcome of such an evaluation will be different. The unfortunate thing is that many people (like me) just assumed that college was the one and only option, and didn't think twice about it. When you're in high school, everybody tells you to go to college. Teachers, gui…

Going to college is still the optimal play for almost everyone, save the highly privileged who can actually drop out and get right back in at any time.

The trades are often romanticized, but overrated in their ability to reliably provide a middle-class standard of living. There will always be some trade that is in high demand and can therefore offer a middle-class salary... but within ten years, it will be flooded by new people, and that will end. (This is the case unless there is a strong union in place and it stays strong.) That's just how the labor market works. The selling point of an advanced education is that it provides insurance against labor market fluctuations, since you're hired for something other than your commodity labor (in theory). That's no longer the case these days, but that's a problem with our society, not our schools.

As engines of social mobility in the US, colleges aren't great--they're expensive, often very elitist, bloated due to runaway administrative costs, and usually staffed by researchers who consider undergraduate teaching to be their fifth priority if at all--but they're still better than literally anything else our society has in place. Our laws are written by millionaire Boomer scumbags, our businesses exist to ratify an existing hereditary elite as meritocrats while being hostile to actual meritocracy, and our culture is thinly-veiled capitalist propaganda. Our colleges might get a C-minus, but that's still ahead of the F that everything else in this country gets.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#56
post #10

If you like college good for you. But the first two years are bullshit. The last two, you should be able to learn them on the job for many career tracks and test them out. Articulate for me exactly why biology, chemistry, philosophy,etc... are neccesary for a Compsci or IT degree? Because the british said so many centuries ago is not a good reason. Neither is "what about the profits of colleges". We put up with 12 ye…

University is not trade school. There is more function there than simply learning to do the narrow job one believes the future may have in store for them. Here are some others: - Obtain fodder for sufficient individuation - Find sexual mates - Find platonic mates - Learn many disconnected things - Learn many connected things - Learn to take criticism in the open - Learn to render criticism in the open - Engage divers…

A "liberal education" was, originally, an education appropriate to free people, as opposed to slaves. Slaves got an education that was more like trade school, if at all. Free people got an education for those who didn't have to work for a living. If you're getting that education today, it has value, but you'd better be in a position where you don't need it to get you a job when you're done.

On the other hand:

> Obtain fodder for sufficient individuation

One of the things you don't learn in college: Not to talk like that.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#57
post #7

I think a lot of what is shared here is the value of learning and building relationships. College is not the only, or in many cases the best way to learn or build relationships. It's expensive, takes a lot of time, and for most graduates, the outcome is an entry level office job and $28-70K in debt to pay off over a couple of decades.

This is where elite colleges shine. You make connections with the kind of people who go to elite colleges. Those are much more valuable than connections with people who go to Random State University.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#58

this is all the same rehashed Boomer garbage defending college. Reality is that all of these benefits could easily be replicated at a fraction of the cost. Cultural inertia is the only thing keeping the current university system alive, everything about the tenure track and how graduate students have to work is broken as well. The current system in the US was not created as a program to efficiently educate a modern wo…

The current system in the US was not created as a program to efficiently educate a modern workforce to maintain a modern economy , so it fails miserably

If anything, the problem with the US education system is that it was designed to do that, and does it well.

Low-income public schools have metal detectors and a significant police presence. Show up a minute late to class (the bells were put there at the request of industrialists) and you'll lose points. They're treated like possible future criminals. High-income public schools have open campuses and forgiving attitudes toward late work and adolescent mischief, but still have lots of rules about when people can do what. Prep schools have guidance counselors that tell you exactly what you need to do, and who will start setting you up at 14, to get into whatever undergraduate college you choose--they train you to expect to be handed everything you want by society.

Whether it's by design or emergence, the system funnels people into socioeconomic strata that neatly correspond to the one they were born into. In the middle class, this means they get an education that is by-and-large competently delivered and that offers a little bit of autonomy but does not, in general, reward creativity.

The average middle school, with its stultifying rules, its emphasis on memorization and busywork, and its reward/punishment systems, is great training for the median industrial job. High school, with the culture of status-seeking and social pettiness, is great preparation for the white-collar corporate world. College trains people for the kind of job that would have been available to them fifty years ago; but in today's economy, all the decent opportunities are spoken-for.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#59

> Imagine learning to play music by fooling around with a piano and discovering that some keys sound good together. Even if after a while you begin to structure music that sounds halfway decent, if you ever want to get good and collaborate with other musicians, you're going to have to start from the beginning and learn theory, chords, and musical notation. Sure, like Bowie. Or Prince. Or McCartney. Wait..

What is your evidence.

Paul McCartney himself: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=167778090799503

"I don't read music or write music, none of us do it in the Beatles. We did some good stuff though."

The 3 examples I listed are also probably the most well-known artists who have not studied theory, all 3 of them have said at various points in time that they can't read sheet music (and therefore definitely do not have a formal musical education). Funnily enough I _can_ read and play sheet music, and you do not see me drawing massive crowds..

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#60
post #2

Why does this essay feel so flat to me? It reads like it was written for class, or for an essay contest for the American Legion: Write about why you went to college. I almost don't believe the author. It feels like you're lying to me. College is more than collecting merit badges.

Looks to be written and self-published by a recent grad. I think the feeling of "flatness" comes from the author's background as a less experienced writer. Nonetheless, I found their points notable and respect their choice to publish.
Post reply on HN