The Value of an Undergraduate Degree

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.

The article statements and leading questions are off. "Are you aware that Israel has considered trading land for peace many times, and it has only worked twice?" Egypt offered peace terms to Israel after 1968 but Israel wanted to keep the Sinai. So Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 and Israel was in dire straits until the US began rushing arms to Israel, which also gave the US a say in how the Sinai would be settled. Israel had little choice but to retreat from the Sinai ultimately.

Also the notion that only democratic governments were overthrown by the Arab spring makes no sense. Ben Ali was pushed out in Tunisia, Mubarak ousted in Egypt etc. If those governments are "democratic" there were nominally only - the "presidents" ruled from 1987 and 1981 to 2011 respectively, and jailed (and tortured) the opposition.

> 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 time, every student at most colleges had to take "Rhetoric" 101 and 102, where those things were taught. You only have to look at modern social networks to see that they're not being taught anymore.

>You don't want to become experienced at writing software in your unique, bespoke way, only to realize that you've been doing things inefficiently and/or differently than everyone else in the field and have to start over from first principles

While a good ideal, the speed of change makes that difficult for universities that simply operate on a longer timeline than the current industry.

To use the bowling metaphor: there isn't a right way to do software as well-known as bowling well. When you go to find that foundation, you get CompSci fundamentals (which are a solid foundation) alongside a bunch of industry best practices that appear to be changing really quickly. Software certainly isn't only about CompSci fundamentals.

The Javascript scene has slowed (for the better IMHO) but it's a good example of a drastic change of styles/techniques over a short time span. Plus we have new languages that are doing new things that may not be taught in undergrad courses.

Even if you zoom out from a single ecosystem like JS and look at the major styles - OOP, functional, procedural - that has changed pretty quickly too. OOP is not necessarily the "right way to bowl" any more than procedural or functional is.

My conclusion here is that the theory of peak practice is very difficult to apply to writing software, however, it probably works with purely CompSci stuff (which can be practiced in any language). By contrast, this theory applies well to bowling, because bowling well is a much slower moving, more well-known target to work towards.

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 years of random but generally useful things forced on us. Once we decide a career as adults, information not directly useful to the job we will be working should be optional.

Not to mention the financial burden and lost time in a person's prime years