811–820 of 914 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because Comp Sci and many STEM degrees in general are losing value does not mean that university overall is not worthwhile.
Does it really not, when many of the other degrees already lost their value a long time ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because Comp Sci and many STEM degrees in general are losing value does not mean that university overall is not worthwhile.
The question is not “does it provide any value whatsoever?” The question is “does a degree provide surplus value to society, given its costs?”
Better than asking "is college worth the cost," and getting into ROI calculations per major is asking "could we provide a similar (or better) educational and social experience at a fraction of the cost"? To that the answer is yes.
If you want to make money, go and train to be a plumber. If you're a kid and you want to be making money (or at least a comfortable living) in 20 year's time, become a farrier. Because we are going to be ploughing with horses again soon, the way things are going. And even if we're not, a horse needs shod every couple of months and costs a couple of hundred every time. I've never seen a hungry-looking farrier or scrap…
I know a farrier. The pay comes straight out of your body and cannot be called comfortable.
My degree was 5 years back in the day. Was it worth it? Maybe, probably. But these days people seem to get a bachelor's and a master's in 5 years, and it kind of pisses me off to have that CV disadvantage when my degree could have effectively been that (the last two years were full of electives to choose a narrower specialization, and was much more research-y).
There is no way that you got that degree recent enough such that the years matter. An undergrad/master degree really only matters for the first, perhaps second job. After that, your experience and ability is what matters.
I find this stage is more important for social development than intellectual development. An early adult stage where you go some place away from home in a relatively easy, same aged social experience, with people of diverse backgrounds is a net social good. There are other ways of getting the same thing. Like if your country has some kind of compulsory service. But maybe let’s stop pretending college is just about th…
Higher ed is like employer based health insurance in that they are both weird path dependent historical accidents. People want cheap healthcare, and it got shoehorned into an odd employer fringe benefit system that really is not at all related healthcare in any intrinsic way. People want job training, and it got shoehorned into extra departments at liberal arts universities intended as aristocrat finishing schools. J…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure what evidence you would expect to see if it was self-selection because of an in-group mentality versus explicit hostility to intentionally keep some out. What about an explicit roadmap? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming > is there some affirmative evidence for the reason why there are so few liberals in the FBI is because they se…
> What about an explicit roadmap? I'm not sure what you're pointing at in the links: I don't see any "explicit roadmap" to exclude mainstream conservative thinkers from professorships documented there. The main examples seem to be Creationists and Alex Jones and similar inflammatory content creators having paid speaker invitations rescinded due to student pressure, which is an radically different topic than what I th…
I’m pointing you towards the trends; you aren’t going to find documentary evidence stating: “We didn’t hire this guy because of his voting history” because a) it’s illegal and b) it’s very unlikely these biases are coordinated between institutions. The Long March article is instructive because the departments where the bias is strongest are all frequent washout degrees for critical theorists.
> It's always very attractive to believe that there's some shadowy cabal explicitly and deliberately controlling the strings to the outcomes that you don't like, when in reality it essentially is never the case.
I never made any assertion as to the existence of a “shadowy cabal” nor any other organized concert. This is an inane attempt to make my claims look ridiculous because you can’t refute them on their own merits. To wit:
> I think it is a conspiracy theory level claim that the explanation is that the FBI is deliberately keeping out mainstream-left-leaning people from being agents.
If you found out 100% of agents were not left-leaning, would you still consider this a fanciful, tin-foil hat style conspiracy? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Note that you have not accurately represented my claim: There is no FBI-style organization in my model that is coordinating the exclusion; it’s intentional, but happening at a local level, not as part of a centralized effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is nonsense though. When academics were pushed out of Soviet and Chinese universities they had to leave to other locations or stop being productive. The fact they can set up their own schools is a plus in the USA. The disparate impact is clear.
> When academics were pushed out of Soviet and Chinese universities they had to leave to other locations or stop being productive. That is not what happened with Soviet nor Chinese academics. They did not started new ideologically pure universities. Maybe you should read more on history rather then making up an alternative one. Moreover, these "new" universities are not run by academics. > The disparate impact is cle…
Go back and try again.
The numbers we're talking about don't agree.
More equally as in some animals are more equal than others
The "old" universities aren't run by academics either.
And conservatives aren't necessarily Christian