6 ms·

Curious thought process... we spend about 12-20 years of our life going at a specific pace to learning "stuff" in different categories. What if you were given a

Curious thought process... we spend about 12-20 years of our life going at a specific pace to learning "stuff" in different categories. What if you were given a choice - Learn the stuff in a class in 12-20 years of wasted time OR just have a list of all the material you must know, along with sample questions (so you know you're learning the right material) and have a venue to turn in work (so you get feedback). But instead of spending 12-20 (or more) years, you are given the choice to do whatever pace you want. So in that sense, could really fast people basically "Doogie Howser" it and start a career by 15? And possibly a related question - instead of doing ANY higher learning activities, we push all that into vocations - basically if you want to be a rocket scientist you ... start being a rocket scientist intern, learn the trade by being a peon in the shops?

EGreg 8y ago
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158
j45 8y ago
One issue is learning is largely prepared and delivered as a linear experience. Our paths in life, are not linear. What we learn, grow from, transfer skills through is not as pretty as a sequential grade or degree system. Employers care about hiring competencies - institutions try to call it holistic but there remains a poor signal to noise ratio in terms of transferable skills. The traditional 2,000 year old form of higher education is no longer able to keep up with the rate of change in society. Today by the time higher institutions prepare new learning material release, it's outdated.
mieseratte 8y ago
As someone who found their path earlier than most, and has a bit of the protestant work ethic I see the appeal. However, there's two problems to this that I can see: First, most folks do not know what they wish to be from a reasonably young age. For the longest time I thought I wanted to be a geologist, probably until about high school, despite having discovered computing at an early age. Funny enough, I never really recognized that I could turn programming into a career. To me it was just something fun that I did. Consider the trope of the college kid who goes to school to find themself, bounces around majors, and graduates late. I know some nations have success tracking students earlier, but that is usually around the high school timeframe at best. Part of early education is setting the foundation and teaching one how to learn. This reduces the amount of years available for "Doogie Howser" self-study down to only four or so, plus an additional three or four for higher learning. Second, even if someone "knows" what they want to do I think many don't necessarily have the drive and resilience for self-guided study and the associated struggle. Many need the structure, and "hand-holding" that comes with a normal classroom. Additionally, some see value in the "well rounded" model of education and so depending on what you want to be it may or may not make sense. Having been of the "I speak English, why study it" school of thought, well, I'm sure this "essay" and the comma atrocities therein speak for itself. Just imagine if I had spent even less time in an English course. If we wanted a more utilitarian society of technicians this would be a good idea, but there are many facets to education besides occupation.
jseliger 8y ago
If you are interested in this topic, the book you're really looking for is Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-education-bryan-caplan https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-educatio...
toomanybeersies 8y ago
In regards to self guided study, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you could do it, everyone else could. This is going to sound really conceited and condescending, but I'm going to write it anyway: I reckon that I could've finished my BSc in Computer Science in probably half the time required. I attended only about 2 weeks of lectures per semester, generally didn't start assignments more than a week before they were due, and didn't study more than about 3 days before the exam. For most people though, that doesn't work. They need to go to lectures, they need to study for a couple of weeks before exams, they need to attend the tutorials. Structured learning and the education system is made for the bottom 95% of the population. Schools spend a lot more time, money, and effort on special education and learning support for less gifted students than they do for the gifted ones. It's different at every school, but I remember that through most of primary school, there were no supplemental learning or other activities for gifted students. I was stuck in the same normal stream as everybody else. It wasn't until I got to high school, where students were streamed into different classes, that I actually got pushed to learn and use my abilities, the top stream was basically pushed a year ahead of all the other students. Even for the normal stream of people though, there are people who will excel in certain areas and struggle in others. But a teacher has a class of 30 students to teach. The education system is made for the masses, we would likely get better educational outcomes from having much smaller class ratios, 10 students per teacher maybe, but nobody has the money to pay that many teachers, and there aren't that many teachers out there. Anyway, my point is that for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work. For most people, they would flail around and struggle.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work It depends very much on what you are learning. Even in computer science, much of what there is to learn - and most of the important things - can't be found in the book. Personal advice by an expert on technique, concepts, and perhaps most crucially, on what you don't know that you don't know, is invaluable. Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. Then imagine chemistry, history, drawing, etc. If you only mean passing courses in one field - that's vocational training, and passing courses is only a proxy measurement anyway. You're missing out on a lot if you think that's education.
cortesoft 8y ago
The most important skill I learned in school was how to deal with other people when you have to be together every day.
aje403 8y ago
Great example, rocket science, let’s throw a bunch of 15 year olds who say they want to be a rocket scientist into nasa. What could go wrong? The mit engineering grad has proven for a few more years that he’s less likely to screw things up. The system sucks but it’s not an easy problem to solve
- itronitron 8y ago
  >> less likely to screw things up By virtue of education or selection process? The main problem with throwing 15 year olds into NASA is that, for a given year, there are far more of them than there are MIT graduates. What is unbalanced about how we educate teenagers is that we saturate them with too many interactions with other teenagers (8 classes a day with 30 other students ~240 unique edges per student) and expect them to be able to focus on learning the course material. This despite the fact that adults outnumber teenagers by a considerable margin. It should be no surprise then that our society in the US is largely centered around childish interests as the majority of our social interactions have occurred as children with children.
  - aje403 8y ago
    By both virtue of education and selection process, and given that their education was adequately rigorous, they've likely been working hard at academics for > 10 years, they had the mental faculties to understand everything in their field, and they're certified by grades from the most educated people in their field on the planet (same is true for other top universities, as well). There are far more problems with hiring 15 year olds at NASA than sheer volume of applications - I would advise you to think more deeply about what you're suggesting as, even in your alternative education scenario, it's a truly terrible idea. Devil's advocate: why is that a bad thing? Kids get social/organization exposure, to sports, music, basic education. The motivated ones are still apparently rising to the top despite the shitty environment. Most humans don't need to go into rocket science, and half of your graduating class will end up directly selling things to other people (in some form or another).As well, are you arguing that kids need less social exposure? That would be true if most kids were going to become software developers, which is not the case. Most of our social interactions do not occur in childhood; you're not speaking for everyone. What I will say, that is somewhat similar to what you're arguing, is that it would be great if students had direct access to more challenging curriculums at every stage of their education. To my knowledge, ambitious high schoolers need benefactors willing to pay for college courses that are standard fare for secondary school in a lot of countries. If you're naturally bright and hard working without affluent parents, you're SOL in HS, which is not fair, and I think it's also unreasonable that they need to rely on being autodidactic from a young age, which is really the only alternative.

EGreg 8y ago

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158

j45 8y ago

One issue is learning is largely prepared and delivered as a linear experience. Our paths in life, are not linear. What we learn, grow from, transfer skills through is not as pretty as a sequential grade or degree system. Employers care about hiring competencies - institutions try to call it holistic but there remains a poor signal to noise ratio in terms of transferable skills. The traditional 2,000 year old form of higher education is no longer able to keep up with the rate of change in society. Today by the time higher institutions prepare new learning material release, it's outdated.

mieseratte 8y ago

As someone who found their path earlier than most, and has a bit of the protestant work ethic I see the appeal. However, there's two problems to this that I can see: First, most folks do not know what they wish to be from a reasonably young age. For the longest time I thought I wanted to be a geologist, probably until about high school, despite having discovered computing at an early age. Funny enough, I never really recognized that I could turn programming into a career. To me it was just something fun that I did. Consider the trope of the college kid who goes to school to find themself, bounces around majors, and graduates late. I know some nations have success tracking students earlier, but that is usually around the high school timeframe at best. Part of early education is setting the foundation and teaching one how to learn. This reduces the amount of years available for "Doogie Howser" self-study down to only four or so, plus an additional three or four for higher learning. Second, even if someone "knows" what they want to do I think many don't necessarily have the drive and resilience for self-guided study and the associated struggle. Many need the structure, and "hand-holding" that comes with a normal classroom. Additionally, some see value in the "well rounded" model of education and so depending on what you want to be it may or may not make sense. Having been of the "I speak English, why study it" school of thought, well, I'm sure this "essay" and the comma atrocities therein speak for itself. Just imagine if I had spent even less time in an English course. If we wanted a more utilitarian society of technicians this would be a good idea, but there are many facets to education besides occupation.

jseliger 8y ago

If you are interested in this topic, the book you're really looking for is Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-education-bryan-caplan https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-educatio...

toomanybeersies 8y ago

In regards to self guided study, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you could do it, everyone else could. This is going to sound really conceited and condescending, but I'm going to write it anyway: I reckon that I could've finished my BSc in Computer Science in probably half the time required. I attended only about 2 weeks of lectures per semester, generally didn't start assignments more than a week before they were due, and didn't study more than about 3 days before the exam. For most people though, that doesn't work. They need to go to lectures, they need to study for a couple of weeks before exams, they need to attend the tutorials. Structured learning and the education system is made for the bottom 95% of the population. Schools spend a lot more time, money, and effort on special education and learning support for less gifted students than they do for the gifted ones. It's different at every school, but I remember that through most of primary school, there were no supplemental learning or other activities for gifted students. I was stuck in the same normal stream as everybody else. It wasn't until I got to high school, where students were streamed into different classes, that I actually got pushed to learn and use my abilities, the top stream was basically pushed a year ahead of all the other students. Even for the normal stream of people though, there are people who will excel in certain areas and struggle in others. But a teacher has a class of 30 students to teach. The education system is made for the masses, we would likely get better educational outcomes from having much smaller class ratios, 10 students per teacher maybe, but nobody has the money to pay that many teachers, and there aren't that many teachers out there. Anyway, my point is that for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work. For most people, they would flail around and struggle.

forapurpose 8y ago
> for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work It depends very much on what you are learning. Even in computer science, much of what there is to learn - and most of the important things - can't be found in the book. Personal advice by an expert on technique, concepts, and perhaps most crucially, on what you don't know that you don't know, is invaluable. Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. Then imagine chemistry, history, drawing, etc. If you only mean passing courses in one field - that's vocational training, and passing courses is only a proxy measurement anyway. You're missing out on a lot if you think that's education.

cortesoft 8y ago

The most important skill I learned in school was how to deal with other people when you have to be together every day.

aje403 8y ago

Great example, rocket science, let’s throw a bunch of 15 year olds who say they want to be a rocket scientist into nasa. What could go wrong? The mit engineering grad has proven for a few more years that he’s less likely to screw things up. The system sucks but it’s not an easy problem to solve

itronitron 8y ago
>> less likely to screw things up By virtue of education or selection process? The main problem with throwing 15 year olds into NASA is that, for a given year, there are far more of them than there are MIT graduates. What is unbalanced about how we educate teenagers is that we saturate them with too many interactions with other teenagers (8 classes a day with 30 other students ~240 unique edges per student) and expect them to be able to focus on learning the course material. This despite the fact that adults outnumber teenagers by a considerable margin. It should be no surprise then that our society in the US is largely centered around childish interests as the majority of our social interactions have occurred as children with children.
- aje403 8y ago
  By both virtue of education and selection process, and given that their education was adequately rigorous, they've likely been working hard at academics for > 10 years, they had the mental faculties to understand everything in their field, and they're certified by grades from the most educated people in their field on the planet (same is true for other top universities, as well). There are far more problems with hiring 15 year olds at NASA than sheer volume of applications - I would advise you to think more deeply about what you're suggesting as, even in your alternative education scenario, it's a truly terrible idea. Devil's advocate: why is that a bad thing? Kids get social/organization exposure, to sports, music, basic education. The motivated ones are still apparently rising to the top despite the shitty environment. Most humans don't need to go into rocket science, and half of your graduating class will end up directly selling things to other people (in some form or another).As well, are you arguing that kids need less social exposure? That would be true if most kids were going to become software developers, which is not the case. Most of our social interactions do not occur in childhood; you're not speaking for everyone. What I will say, that is somewhat similar to what you're arguing, is that it would be great if students had direct access to more challenging curriculums at every stage of their education. To my knowledge, ambitious high schoolers need benefactors willing to pay for college courses that are standard fare for secondary school in a lot of countries. If you're naturally bright and hard working without affluent parents, you're SOL in HS, which is not fair, and I think it's also unreasonable that they need to rely on being autodidactic from a young age, which is really the only alternative.