5 ms·

I find it almost incredible that while the motivated autodidact can learn almost any theoretical topic for almost no money via the internet we simultaneously ha

I find it almost incredible that while the motivated autodidact can learn almost any theoretical topic for almost no money via the internet we simultaneously have millions of students getting into heavy debt at university. (Also into heavy drinking, exam pressure, mental illness, radical indoctrination, etc.)

rleigh 9y ago
There's a difference between learning a topic yourself and learning it at a university: the university gives you a certificate at the end to say you did it, which other people recognise as having value. There are also things that you gain by studying and working with others: discussion, exposure to different perspectives and points of view. Inspiration by experts in the field. These all have value. Whether they are worth the cost is a separate question. Heavy drinking and radical indoctrination are optional; you can skip all that. Exam and other pressure from deadlines can be bad, but it can also be a powerful motivator to pull your finger out and get stuff done.
- roceasta 9y ago
  Sure. But bear in mind that all these benefits existed in the 60s, 70s and 80s, before the higher education bubble. When there was no web and little or no student debt. Yet there are more people in higher education now. Heavy drinking and radical indoctrination are optional They're notionally optional but don't underestimate the effects of social pressure. In fact, conformity prevails strongly on the academic as well as the social side of university life. People talk about discussion and perspectives but in practice they want and expect accredited professionals to conform and to believe the same things. We don't generally want our doctors, for instance, to be original and creative. (Whereas, by contrast, we can have real discussion here.) Students want to know whether a given topic will be in the exam or not, and what the right answer is. In the arts/humanities, where fashions tend to prevail, they try hard to give approved answers in original or disguised form. I suppose this isn't surprising, historically speaking. The first universities were religious institutions founded to train priests, to inculcate doctrinal uniformity, stamp out heresies, and so on. If we judge the rationality of institutions by whether they meet the problems they purport to address then by that standard universities are pretty irrational. In fact I think one of the main functions they serve isn't mentioned very much: getting the kids to leave home.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >There are also things that you gain by studying and working with others: discussion, exposure to different perspectives and points of view. Inspiration by experts in the field. These are all available on the internet for free as well, perhaps more so than in a university setting.
mcguire 9y ago
I think you will find that motivated autodidacts are (and have always been) rather thin on the ground. The internet has had less effect than the idea of a public library.

rleigh 9y ago

There's a difference between learning a topic yourself and learning it at a university: the university gives you a certificate at the end to say you did it, which other people recognise as having value. There are also things that you gain by studying and working with others: discussion, exposure to different perspectives and points of view. Inspiration by experts in the field. These all have value. Whether they are worth the cost is a separate question. Heavy drinking and radical indoctrination are optional; you can skip all that. Exam and other pressure from deadlines can be bad, but it can also be a powerful motivator to pull your finger out and get stuff done.

roceasta 9y ago
Sure. But bear in mind that all these benefits existed in the 60s, 70s and 80s, before the higher education bubble. When there was no web and little or no student debt. Yet there are more people in higher education now. Heavy drinking and radical indoctrination are optional They're notionally optional but don't underestimate the effects of social pressure. In fact, conformity prevails strongly on the academic as well as the social side of university life. People talk about discussion and perspectives but in practice they want and expect accredited professionals to conform and to believe the same things. We don't generally want our doctors, for instance, to be original and creative. (Whereas, by contrast, we can have real discussion here.) Students want to know whether a given topic will be in the exam or not, and what the right answer is. In the arts/humanities, where fashions tend to prevail, they try hard to give approved answers in original or disguised form. I suppose this isn't surprising, historically speaking. The first universities were religious institutions founded to train priests, to inculcate doctrinal uniformity, stamp out heresies, and so on. If we judge the rationality of institutions by whether they meet the problems they purport to address then by that standard universities are pretty irrational. In fact I think one of the main functions they serve isn't mentioned very much: getting the kids to leave home.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>There are also things that you gain by studying and working with others: discussion, exposure to different perspectives and points of view. Inspiration by experts in the field. These are all available on the internet for free as well, perhaps more so than in a university setting.

mcguire 9y ago

I think you will find that motivated autodidacts are (and have always been) rather thin on the ground. The internet has had less effect than the idea of a public library.