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

The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

pearlleff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#61

Post by _8j50 »

BeetleB wrote: post #47
_8j50 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad you like those things but for most people an undergrad degree is a piece of paper and a line on the resume. If it does not help me with my job and future income it should not be mandatory for employers to require it. I have no problem with degrees not required by employers. If you apply at a tech company and get rejected because of lack of undergrad degree then are you saying becoming "a robust citizen of t…

> If it does not help me with my job and future income it should not be mandatory for employers to require it. And you've pinpointed the problem - it's not with universities but with employers.

It's both I think. I can understand employers wanting employees to know more than leetcode for example. English/writing would help having good documentation for example. The current undergrad regime is too broad is my argument. I am not a coder but in my field undergrads are not very well prepared to enter the workforce.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#62

Post by brewdad »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #53
vehemenz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is your argument then? Saying nuh-uh you're wrong isn't a valid argument.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#63

Post by daniel-cussen »

wiremine wrote: post #5

I really value my undergrad degree. I'm 20+ years out of college, and am thankful I went that route, for many of the reasons outlined in this post. I feel like most HN conversations about degrees downplay these sorts of benefits. That said, I'm now at the point where I'm close to looking at colleges with my oldest. Value/cost is very much on my radar. 20 years ago, you could go to college to "find yourself." You coul…

> Can you reproduce the opportunities university gives you on your own? Yes, but it's very difficult.

No, not with Covid. Without in-person classes, you don't meet anybody and you don't learn anything more than with a $2.50 in late fees at a library, what Good Will Hunting talked about.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#64

Post by chucksta »

cs137 wrote: post #54
teakettle42 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>but no one's life has ever been improved by deprivation.

I think there's several sects of religion which disagree with you. IE Catholic Lent, the entire amish religion, monks of any kind..

I'm also curious what your take on chores and allowance is then as well?

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#65

Post by Ekaros »

_8j50 wrote: 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…

I rather find it strange as here those subjects are covered in High School, to different depths depending where student is aiming at. This might be too early, but in general it opens up avenues to Universities or Applied Schools. Where goal is to teach focused things in certain fields.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#66

Post by Cupertino95014 »

corrral wrote: post #38
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #6

> College will teach you to write, and ideally, to speak as well. Even just simple frameworks like the five paragraph essay or thesis-antithesis-synthesis work wonders for idea organization. It's critical to be able to organize your thoughts into a loose structure of "introduction", "what people have previously thought", "what I think", "reasons others might disagree and why they're wrong," and "conclusion." At one t…

Innumeracy gets a lot of play on here but I've met an awful lot of college graduates—even those with higher degrees—who aren't technically illiterate but are fairly incompetent readers. I'm not convinced the situation with mathematics is unique—poor readers seem to be a solid majority, even among the college educated. I do think attitudes about the two are different, which may be why the situations look different. Pe…

If you see the subjects a child in Ancient Greece or Rome studied, "rhetoric" was usually one of them. The ability to speak well and convince your fellow citizens was considered fundamental in any sort of democracy (however imperfect).

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#67

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

cs137 wrote: post #55
karaterobot wrote: post #24

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…

I think college is beneficial for everyone and I honestly have some regrets for not going that route myself, but I think the costs associated with it heavily outweigh any benefits at the moment, especially in the long term.

I'm curious where I would fit into your opinion of all this. I'm a high-school drop out with 1.7 GPA (ended up getting a GED eventually), but I've been in tech/software dev for nearly 17 years now. Whether it be job offers or ability to perform well in my role, the lack of college hasn't been a barrier at all. I currently work in a FAANG and usually outperform my peers and haven't had any problems getting offers for management positions. I got into software dev because of my love for video games. I have an average IQ and I'm not gifted. You say "almost everyone", but there's nothing special that sets me apart from "almost everyone". What are your thoughts on that?

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#68

Post by cs137 »

chucksta wrote: post #64
cs137 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>but no one's life has ever been improved by deprivation. I think there's several sects of religion which disagree with you. IE Catholic Lent, the entire amish religion, monks of any kind.. I'm also curious what your take on chores and allowance is then as well?

Surely, you know that there is a difference between abstinence (voluntary, pursued for esoteric reasons) and deprivation (involuntary, imposed by a malevolent society).

I think children should do enough chores to have a sense of self-efficacy. Same with survival skills. Being college-age or older and not knowing how to cook or do basic cleaning is an embarrassment, even if you're rich.

All that said, if you want your kids to succeed in the world, they have to know how to do a task without becoming the one who does the task, if you catch the distinction. In the workplace, you have to be willing to do unpleasant jobs, but be extremely selective in what you're willing to let yourself become the one who does. Outside of the upper class, no one really learns this skill. People from working- or middle-class backgrounds are either too resistant to doing tasks they consider beneath them (which is a bad look) or too willing, which leads to recurring time and image costs that eat up their ability to have a career.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#69

Post by corrral »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #66
corrral wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innumeracy gets a lot of play on here but I've met an awful lot of college graduates—even those with higher degrees—who aren't technically illiterate but are fairly incompetent readers. I'm not convinced the situation with mathematics is unique—poor readers seem to be a solid majority, even among the college educated. I do think attitudes about the two are different, which may be why the situations look different. Pe…

If you see the subjects a child in Ancient Greece or Rome studied, "rhetoric" was usually one of them. The ability to speak well and convince your fellow citizens was considered fundamental in any sort of democracy (however imperfect).

Yeah, I know rhetoric isn't about reading, exactly—I'm looking at the cheerful green spine of a Loeb edition of Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric on my shelf right this moment—but there seems to be a general deficiency in the ability to even follow, let alone construct, arguments or lines of reasoning. Often, bare comprehension of meaning is severely lacking, before we even get to interpreting and evaluating a text.

I mean simply that reading well is a distressingly uncommon skill; that one may hardly hope to write well without that foundation; and that there's a great deal of overlap between reading comprehension, and evaluating oral argument or presentation. I agree that instruction in rhetoric is lacking, but universities, and certainly high schools, aren't even doing a great job of ensuring graduates are skilled at more fundamental aspects of communication. However, perhaps that's backwards, and more robust rhetorical instruction would fill in some of the gaps in reading ability. I wouldn't mind seeing it attempted, since the current approach doesn't seem to be very effective.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#70

Post by linuxftw »

dahart wrote: post #49
linuxftw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro college crowd has a tool the anti-college crowd doesn't: They understand that the masses respond emotionally rather than rationally. If there is to be meaningful change in society, we need to make people feel embarrassed for attending college.

I don’t understand framing this as some kind of tribal pro or anti college. Are people against education, or upset by the costs in the US? Other countries manage to fund it a bit more sanely. You will otherwise be pretty hard pressed to make people embarrassed by learning more and earning more.

There's a lot to unpack here. College is not synonymous with education. I'm anti-college insofar as I feel that it is a net-negative for society, and greatly so. For the vast majority, college is a means to an end, a way to receive some training at best, or mere credentialing at worst, to work for some entity (mostly for-profit corporations). Does society need this to function, is it even desirable?

The university system is full of cons and frauds. Anyone that gives that system money is helping to perpetuate the system.

Post reply on HN