3 ms·

> The underlying problem is that college is the wrong thing. College focuses on capital-E “Education.” Book learning, “big ideas,” and “learning to think.” What

> The underlying problem is that college is the wrong thing. College focuses on capital-E “Education.” Book learning, “big ideas,” and “learning to think.” What we need is training—teaching people the concrete skills they need for a job. Can you back this up? It's a big statement. Even if it's commonplace, I don't think it's well thought through. Education is for far more than jobs: People have to be citizens, community members, parents, individuals, and more - they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world. I'll note that the world's major problems now are not a lack of software and science, it's a lack of critical thinking about the (mis)information they read, and lack of understanding of politics and public affairs. For example, we know about climate change; the science isn't the obstacle. We've developed Facebook; more technology isn't the need.

qball 9y ago
>they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world. The problem with that, however, is that there's a large proportion of the population that quite simply isn't capable of doing that (or who are located where those skills are irrelevant). They're just usually hidden from the sight of people that are, in the exact same ways and for the exact same reasons that people of different political leanings self-segregate. The American upper class needs to find a way to make the American lower class objectively useful again. Let-them-eat-cake "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more. An objective-focused education that trains an individual to be useful at doing a certain class of tasks (like fixing automated machines as they break), however, does. 20th century American history (as well as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) demonstrates that society cannot advance until _everyone_ has a sense of purpose and food on the table. Since the balance of political power in the US skews rural (lower class dominant), those in urban areas (upper class dominant) need to work harder to keep things equal. And when everyone's happy, progress happens fast (though it tends to lag about a decade behind). Civil rights in the 60s, sexual revolution in the 70s, objective gender equality movements in the 70s, EPA in the 70s (and sufficient political goodwill to get the Montreal Protocol implemented), technological revolution in the 80s (read: automation that anyone could afford to invest in). Progress has slowed down after that. Modern education has obviously failed to provide the educated with the critical thinking skills necessary for them to understand why, but that's a topic for another day.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  There are many false underlying assumptions in these questions. > "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more. Do you have any evidence that it's an issue of smarts or natural ability? In fact, the best predictor of educational level is parental wealth. I believe almost anyone can achieve if they work hard, and that the goal of society is to give opportunity to all, including college. The big and evil presumption here is that economic class is fixed. There's nothing about children of the wealthy that makes them any better than children of the working class. The latter have every talent and deserve every opportunity. Let people achieve whatever they can; that is freedom and the American Dream; telling them at birth that they aren't worthy of college is just lazy oppression. Social mobility used to be much higher in the U.S., and it remains higher in other developed countries. One reason is that college tuition was lower.
rayiner 9y ago
The job of educating people to be citizens is what the K-12 system is meant for. We spend almost $700 billion a year on that endeavor. If that isn’t doing the job, then we need to rethink it. Not waste even more money on education. The point about climate change shows why more education isn’t what we need: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Comparative_hires_0.png https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Compar.... Countries like Germany are willing to pay twice as much for electricity to fight climate change despite far fewer people having a college degree. The fact is, even most people in the US who have been brow beaten enough by liberal academia,[1] to accept climate change aren’t willing to make any lifestyle compromises as a result. What you want is a change in peoples’ values, not their education. [1] I of course accept climate change is happening. But despite having a STEM degree, I don’t really understand it in any way I couldn’t have with a 12th grade education. I’ve simply been inculcated with values, as a result of my upbringing, that cause me to defer to academic experts on points that I haven’t personally researched.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > The job of educating people to be citizens is what the K-12 system is meant for What basis is there for this statement? Why can't they learn far more in college? What is magical about 12th grade that makes it the perfect end to education? Why wouldn't we want everyone to learn far more? I went to a good high school, but I learned much more in college that has been extremely valuable to my life. A major point of college is not to personally perform climate change science, but to develop the skills to understand complex information (not something reasonably possible in 12th grade), to learn complex skills, and to be able to think critically about and evaluate information, such as what the experts, politicians and people on HN say about climate change. I spent years in college studying the best thinkers in history; IME it's given me a huge advantage over people who spent that time in vocational school or working. I'll add that it's mostly the wealthy and college educated who say college isn't needed, and yet their kids always go to college. What they mean is, 'college isn't for the other kids, the poor ones'. And today, the biggest predictor of college education is parental wealth.
djrogers 9y ago
> Education is for far more than jobs: People have to be citizens, community members, parents, individuals, and more - they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world. It is incredibly condescending and shortsighted of you to say that those of us who did not attend college are not capable of participating in, or even excelling at those roles in society.

qball 9y ago

>they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world. The problem with that, however, is that there's a large proportion of the population that quite simply isn't capable of doing that (or who are located where those skills are irrelevant). They're just usually hidden from the sight of people that are, in the exact same ways and for the exact same reasons that people of different political leanings self-segregate. The American upper class needs to find a way to make the American lower class objectively useful again. Let-them-eat-cake "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more. An objective-focused education that trains an individual to be useful at doing a certain class of tasks (like fixing automated machines as they break), however, does. 20th century American history (as well as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) demonstrates that society cannot advance until _everyone_ has a sense of purpose and food on the table. Since the balance of political power in the US skews rural (lower class dominant), those in urban areas (upper class dominant) need to work harder to keep things equal. And when everyone's happy, progress happens fast (though it tends to lag about a decade behind). Civil rights in the 60s, sexual revolution in the 70s, objective gender equality movements in the 70s, EPA in the 70s (and sufficient political goodwill to get the Montreal Protocol implemented), technological revolution in the 80s (read: automation that anyone could afford to invest in). Progress has slowed down after that. Modern education has obviously failed to provide the educated with the critical thinking skills necessary for them to understand why, but that's a topic for another day.

forapurpose 9y ago
There are many false underlying assumptions in these questions. > "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more. Do you have any evidence that it's an issue of smarts or natural ability? In fact, the best predictor of educational level is parental wealth. I believe almost anyone can achieve if they work hard, and that the goal of society is to give opportunity to all, including college. The big and evil presumption here is that economic class is fixed. There's nothing about children of the wealthy that makes them any better than children of the working class. The latter have every talent and deserve every opportunity. Let people achieve whatever they can; that is freedom and the American Dream; telling them at birth that they aren't worthy of college is just lazy oppression. Social mobility used to be much higher in the U.S., and it remains higher in other developed countries. One reason is that college tuition was lower.

rayiner 9y ago

The job of educating people to be citizens is what the K-12 system is meant for. We spend almost $700 billion a year on that endeavor. If that isn’t doing the job, then we need to rethink it. Not waste even more money on education. The point about climate change shows why more education isn’t what we need: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Comparative_hires_0.png https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Compar.... Countries like Germany are willing to pay twice as much for electricity to fight climate change despite far fewer people having a college degree. The fact is, even most people in the US who have been brow beaten enough by liberal academia,[1] to accept climate change aren’t willing to make any lifestyle compromises as a result. What you want is a change in peoples’ values, not their education. [1] I of course accept climate change is happening. But despite having a STEM degree, I don’t really understand it in any way I couldn’t have with a 12th grade education. I’ve simply been inculcated with values, as a result of my upbringing, that cause me to defer to academic experts on points that I haven’t personally researched.

forapurpose 9y ago
> The job of educating people to be citizens is what the K-12 system is meant for What basis is there for this statement? Why can't they learn far more in college? What is magical about 12th grade that makes it the perfect end to education? Why wouldn't we want everyone to learn far more? I went to a good high school, but I learned much more in college that has been extremely valuable to my life. A major point of college is not to personally perform climate change science, but to develop the skills to understand complex information (not something reasonably possible in 12th grade), to learn complex skills, and to be able to think critically about and evaluate information, such as what the experts, politicians and people on HN say about climate change. I spent years in college studying the best thinkers in history; IME it's given me a huge advantage over people who spent that time in vocational school or working. I'll add that it's mostly the wealthy and college educated who say college isn't needed, and yet their kids always go to college. What they mean is, 'college isn't for the other kids, the poor ones'. And today, the biggest predictor of college education is parental wealth.

djrogers 9y ago

> Education is for far more than jobs: People have to be citizens, community members, parents, individuals, and more - they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world. It is incredibly condescending and shortsighted of you to say that those of us who did not attend college are not capable of participating in, or even excelling at those roles in society.