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

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#91

Post by chucksta »

cs137 wrote: post #68
chucksta wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I'm aware, but they both have the same effect on a non-adult with no other recourse, and they both generally have the same goal of teaching appreciation of "success" in different forms.

So charing the college student rent and bills is not providing a sense of self efficacy (I like you put it like that). I also agree its all to teach how to do something without it owning you, and it is a life skill not all have.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#92

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #32

> 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..

> "Sure, like Bowie. Or Prince. Or McCartney. Wait.."

A handful of people won the lottery, therefore everyone should play the lottery?

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#93

Post by cafard »

legalcorrection wrote: post #17
wiremine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a long conversation with a coworker the other day. He has a 20 year old, and he's allowing this son to stay at home, but is charging rent and forcing him to start paying for more and more things.

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.

I took a year off college, and my parents charged me rent. It was easily covered, and I didn't mind.

Except for those of my contemporaries--boomers--who were lawyers and engineers, most of us were not that prosperous in our twenties, I think.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#94

Post by cs137 »

bojangleslover wrote: post #89
cs137 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am. We're a long way from automating all human labor out of existence, but we only have to automate some of it to trigger wage collapses, because the job market is inelastic in a way that works not in labor's favor.

The reason cappies are bitching about a "labor shortage" right now is that, during this anomalous period, inelasticity seems to be working against them (although, let's be honest, they're not hurting all that much). Is that going to trigger long-term movement in labor's favor? Probably not. Capital has political and social power, not to mention well-oiled PR machinery, and labor doesn't.

We'll still have jobs for human truckers in 2035. We might have only automated 10% of those jobs. It won't matter. A 10% cut in job availability can trigger a 50% drop in wages and working conditions. What are workers going to do, not work? It's the same thing as with gas prices. A small disruption can cause costs to spike.

If you rely on the labor market to survive, the future has literally nothing for you, unless corporate capitalism is overthrown.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#95

Post by sleepdreamy »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #32

> 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..

As a self taught musician this is totally bullshit TO AN EXTENT. I fucking shred and know zero music theory. All self taught and I can tune by ear as well.

When you start to play with a higher caliber of musicians, it becomes an expected threshold. I think its a bad analogy but it kind of is true the better you get. Still bad analogy

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#96

Post by 2snakes »

dahart wrote: post #82
linuxftw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Ar…

Like Chomsky says the elites said, education is for the indoctrination of the young.

Re: The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

#97

Post by dahart »

2snakes wrote: post #96
dahart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Ar…

Like Chomsky says the elites said, education is for the indoctrination of the young.

Without context, that’s nothing more than a platitude. In some sense it is perhaps tautological and meaningless since the words educate and indoctrinate could be viewed as practically synonymous. Anyway I’m sure there’s a pithy quote about lacking education and being less educated and/or more poor, but the real question is what is the actual, realistic, practical alternative? There is nothing wrong with choosing not to attend college with eyes wide open IMO, but globally increasing education opportunities is considered to be critical for eliminating poverty. So is Chomsky’s quote even relevant to whether to go to school, or is he critiquing or reflecting on the philosophy of our style of education? The man has a PhD after all.
Post reply on HN