>Universities are the last place where people actually attempt to expand human knowledge through research and are willing to teach you their subject. It's the o

>Universities are the last place where people actually attempt to expand human knowledge through research and are willing to teach you their subject. It's the one place where you can go study something entirely and totally useless like Art History or History and Philosophy of Science and nobody is going to ask you why. And then immediately thereafter: >Except for a few places like MIT, Computer Science is a pointless discipline with no culture. While I agree with some of the points made in the article (do go to college, because you'll be a better person for it, regardless.) This is where the article completely loses cohesion. The way I see it, there are two ways you can teach computer science, and in both it is useful to you as a programmer, provided you apply yourself. 1. You are taking software engineering, learning to code. It may not broaden your horizons, but you spend four years looking at code and writing code in a structured environment, you're going to get better at coding. 2. It is a hopelessly abstract mathematical endeavor that has nothing to do with programming. If that's the case, it's just like philosophy of science. Despite its apparent inanity, simply the act of dissecting the how and why of computing will affect you as a person, enhancing the way you look at the world.