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

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#81

Post by cs137 »

wiremine wrote: post #76
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.…

> On the other hand, Game Theory 101 tells us that forced plays are often lousy moves I think this falls into the category of "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Teaching children, in an age appropriate way that takes their unique strengths and weaknesses into consideration, is the definition of parenting. Preparing kids for life on their own is important. Keeping commitments, bu…

If you're making your kids pay rent, there are bigger issues. Why aren't they able to find housing? Are they not able to find decent jobs? There could be any number of answers, and it might not be the kid's fault, but something may be pathological here. (Of course, there are also valid reasons for kids to live with their parents; elder care is just one of them.) The time to solve the problem (if there is one) was years ago.

In today's world, I don't think you should have kids unless you have enough wealth to guarantee that they won't have to rely on the labor market to survive. That doesn't mean you need to have enough money for them to live like private jet assholes; but you should be able to leave them enough that they can do what they want with their lives, because the era of "good jobs" seems to be ending.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to prepare children for the life that lies ahead for them. There are too many unknown variables. Within 10-15 years, we're either going to have a complete (and possibly quite violent, thus unpredictable) global overthrow of capitalism--this is necessary, but there's no guarantee of what comes afterward being better--or we will see the opening steps of regression into such a degraded state--techno-capitalist feudalism within a collapsing ecosystem (in Fraser's terminology, a rentism that turns into exterminism upon pressure)--that will leave humanity unlikely, within anyone's lifetime, to recover.

1950s parents prepared their kids for one world; in the 1980s, their kids entered one that was slightly shittier (economically speaking) but still fairly similar. Most of our (1980s and '90s) parents prepared us for a world that no longer exists; we ended up coming of age into an unrecognizable country. (Who would have predicted, in late 1990s, that working conditions and living standards in the US would be third world within a generation? No one; I remember; I was there.) I feel really bad for parents today, because there is no way of knowing what the future is going to look like, but the probability of it being absolutely atrocious is much, much higher than it should be.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#82

Post by dahart »

linuxftw wrote: post #70
dahart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sy…

> College is not synonymous with education

Right, that’s my question to you, what exactly are you referring to when you say you’re anti college: the cost or the education?

What’s the evidence for college being a large net negative? Are you talking about the US only, or are you including, say, Norway too? (Are you actually anti college, or anti current US education funding?)

What do you mean is it needed/desirable? Are you suggesting that education alone is a bad thing, or that well rounded (non-vocational) education is bad for society, that people would be better off not taking math / writing / history? Is vocational job training unnecessary? Any reason to think it would be equally effective if corporations did it privately, or that it would cost less all else being equal?

Currently, the training plus credentialing yields 2x earnings in the US above non college graduates. Whether good or bad, the result is more money moving to society. There is no clear financial net negative, in fact the current financial benefit to society is so large that it’s obvious the US govt could fully fund college education for all on the increased tax revenue alone, and still have multiples more than that to spare. I don’t yet see your argument at all.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#83

Post by davidgay »

_8j50 wrote: post #79
davidgay wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

See that makes sense to me. But dare I ask why europe is not 2 years then? Do US colleges teach less because in the US, you could be studying oceanology or electrical engineering and the first two years are more or less same courses. In HS, I mostly showed up to class and cruised through with minimal effort last two years bc it wasn't that interesting or challenging.

At least for my undergrad (CS, at www.epfl.ch), the answer was basically "more math" (2 years of).

The usual generic answer was "it's approximately like a US master's".

And at least for the EPFL today, they've essentially formalised your suggestion and that master's equivalence: you get a "bachelor's" after 3 years. And you can optionally continue 2 more years and get a "master's".

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#84

Post by selimthegrim »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #63
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.

Well most libraries abolished late fees during COVID so swings and roundabouts I guess.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#85

Post by whateveracct »

I'm a software dev now. I only write Haskell. My bachelors was in electrical and computer engineering. The experience I got in the lab making analog circuits, asics, and from-scratch computers on an FPGA was invaluable. There was a lot I don't remember - fair. But my education is well beyond any peer I've run into in my time at FAANG and startups alike. And I went to an in-state school in the Midwest for cheap!

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#86

Post by abdullahkhalids »

_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…

People with CompSci degrees have changed the world in the past few decades. Many of those changes are good, but they have also built tools that are being used to undermine democratic processes, to cause wide-scale depression, the violation of the people's rights, etc.

The reason is exactly because people with CompSci already do not study enough philosophy, ethics, sociology and hence do not have any idea that you have to think about the consequences of the tools you build on society. Or do great evil.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#88

Post by arethuza »

_8j50 wrote: post #78
arethuza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I did a CS degree at a UK university in the 1980s and it was 4 years of maths & CS stuff - pretty focused. Learning how to actually write code was something you were pretty much expected to pick up by yourself - most of the CS classes had requirements to do a personal project which was a large part of the marks for that class. Absolutely no way could any graduate from that course without having produced multip…

Would love to take a look at the courses in that degree. That's my main hangup, I have such a thirst to learn college level compsci (not how to code but algorithms, theories,etc...) and crypto but spending two years writing english essays and philosophy presentations is no bueno.

As far as I know most UK universities tend to have focused degrees - you sign up to a particular course and that area is what you focus on for 3 or 4 years. The good side of this is the focus on a particular area, the downside is that if you choose a course that you find that you don't like it can be difficult to transfer to other courses unless they are closely related.

Mind you - my experience is 30+ years old at this point.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#89

Post by bojangleslover »

cs137 wrote: post #81
wiremine wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, Game Theory 101 tells us that forced plays are often lousy moves I think this falls into the category of "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Teaching children, in an age appropriate way that takes their unique strengths and weaknesses into consideration, is the definition of parenting. Preparing kids for life on their own is important. Keeping commitments, bu…

If you're making your kids pay rent, there are bigger issues. Why aren't they able to find housing? Are they not able to find decent jobs? There could be any number of answers, and it might not be the kid's fault, but something may be pathological here. (Of course, there are also valid reasons for kids to live with their parents; elder care is just one of them.) The time to solve the problem (if there is one) was yea…

>because the era of "good jobs" seems to be ending

Are you serious?

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#90

Post by native_samples »

arethuza wrote: post #29
tedheath123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it the British that said so? AFAIK most British undergraduate courses don't have general education requirements

Yeah - I did a CS degree at a UK university in the 1980s and it was 4 years of maths & CS stuff - pretty focused. Learning how to actually write code was something you were pretty much expected to pick up by yourself - most of the CS classes had requirements to do a personal project which was a large part of the marks for that class. Absolutely no way could any graduate from that course without having produced multip…

I did a CS degree at a UK university in the early 2000s and we were forced to take two modules of non-CS in the first year. Due to the ridiculous way places were allocated (you literally had a single day in which to physically run around the university town trying to visit the offices and find courses with space), I ended up doing history and archaeology.

Mostly, this reinforced the general impression that these subjects were extremely easy and involved next to no work, compared to CS. It didn't help me much in later life though.

Post reply on HN