3 ms·

Out of the 3 pursuits you mentioned explicitly, I think only one of them actually truly benefits from the education system: medicine. With finance, the fundamen

by whopa 16y ago

Out of the 3 pursuits you mentioned explicitly, I think only one of them actually truly benefits from the education system: medicine. With finance, the fundamentals are easily learned by self study, and to excel really depends more on personality type and drive than stuff that's taught in school. Law you can absolutely self study, there's plenty who've passed the bar exam without a degree in the past, though it's harder these days now that a lot of bar associations require a degree before you can sit for the test. That's likely due to favors to law schools rather than any real qualification reason. Some other fields do certainly benefit from the resources a university provide though. With many engineering and science subjects, lab work is pretty key to understanding, and you're not going to have to resources to do that on your own general. Computer science is an exception here, since computers are pretty readily available. However, with the rise of grade inflation and the general dumbing down of university curricula, for a lot of subjects your average school just doesn't confer much actual value.

WalterBright 16y ago
I benefited greatly from the courses I took at Caltech. What I learned was: 1. how to learn 2. organized methods of thinking about problems 3. how to separate truth from crap 4. how to break down large problems into solvable small ones I'm not sure how these can be learned effectively through self study.
- srgseg 16y ago
  Interesting, please could you elaborate on the specific courses/experiences which helped you learn these things (esp no. 3) My experience of a CS degree was being drowned in information but not anything nearly as useful as that which you've noted.
  - WalterBright 16y ago
    None of the courses were labeled with "organized thinking" or "separating truth from crap". Learning that stuff was a side effect of probably 80% of the standard curriculum. Separating truth from crap is essentially what the scientific method is all about. If there is data that doesn't fit the theory, no matter how small, the theory is wrong and needs to be revised. A theory may explain existing facts, but it is useless unless it can make predictions that can then be tested. Stuff like that.
- moron4hire 16y ago
  Being homeschooled, I had learned these things prior to college. Perhaps that is why I didn't get much out of it.
- palish 16y ago
  I'm not sure how [1. how to learn 2. organized methods of thinking about problems 3. how to separate truth from crap 4. how to break down large problems into solvable small ones] can be learned effectively through self study. Perhaps you should break down that problem into solvable small ones? Then you could determine how I was able to teach myself each of those with only a high school education.
  - mayank 16y ago
    > Perhaps you should break down that problem into solvable small ones? Then you could determine how I was able to teach myself each of those with only a high school education. This is something I've heard a lot. I don't mean to disparage your accomplishments, but how exactly do you know what you're missing with a college/grad school education? It's fallacious to think that a college education will instantly make you smarter, but it's also fallacious to think that a college education is worthless.
    - WalterBright 16y ago
      Pretty much everyone believes they are organized thinkers, can separate truth from crap, etc. I certainly thought so when I entered college. After 4 years of Caltech, though, I emerged with the realization that I didn't know much about any of that before. While maybe I still am not an organized thinker, I could tell that I had gotten a great deal better at it. Additionally, when I work with others, even though they have college degrees, I can often see the disorganized thinking and lack of problem solving skills. I see this a lot in the programming world, for example. Many programmers, when confronted a bug, flail about essentially at random hoping to get lucky and fix it. If you show them how to approach finding the problem in an organized manner, it's like you're speaking a foreign language to them (or at least I'm a very bad teacher, which is entirely possible). For another example, I once had the job of figuring out the force involved when a screw drive ran full tilt into its stops. I worked out the math, etc., coming up with a formula for the force, plugged the numbers in, and got the answer. My colleague nearby (with a 4 year engineering degree as well) asked me in amazement "what book did you get that formula from?" If you're an EE, and you carry around a card that has printed on it V=IR, R=V/I, I=V/R then you do not know how to solve problems - you learned how to formula plug. Some people can learn all this stuff from self-study. The risk with self-study, however, is that you may not be aware of where the gaps in your skills are, especially if they are difficult to quantify like "organized thinking" or "problem solving skills" or "ability to separate truth from crap".
danielsoneg 16y ago
School gives you three things: Exposure to a range of scenarios, a safe place to screw up, and someone who knows what they're doing to show you the right way to do it. Like everything else in life, though, you get out what you put in - you can't just show up for four years and magically expect to know what you're doing. There's still a whole hell of a lot to be gained if you do more than just the rote assignments, though, and I'd wager four years spent actively learning at a university yields better than four years studying by yourself for equal levels of commitment.
idoh 16y ago
I think it would be hard to be a competent lawyer without going to law school. Good law schools change the way you think, and that's not something that you can get self studying. It is true that you can pass the bar without going to school. In fact law school does not prepare you for the bar exam. Most people take a supplemental course after law school just to prep for the exam. I am pretty sure that a reasonably bright person could just do the prep and pass the exam. But the exam itself is sort of a joke in that the material you are tested on is pretty orthogonal to what you'd need to know to be a good lawyer.
- whopa 16y ago
  I've heard this expressed many times from various people: law schools love engineers because they already know how to think analytically and don't have to be taught that. This is independent of whether they learned any form of engineering in school or not. As far as the bar exam being a joke, if that's true, that's broken. If the more important thing is going to law school for 3 years, then why put so much emphasis on the bar exam t all? There are people who graduate to law school but never pass the exam, or the ones who try and try again and pass it on their 4th or 5th try, if they went to school why isn't that meaningful? Either the schooling isn't all that it's cracked up to be or the metric doesn't measure the right things, but either way there's an impedance mismatch which means the system is broken.
  - wallflower 16y ago
    > law schools love engineers because they already know how to think analytically and don't have to be taught that I went to engineering school as an undergraduate. In my opinion, the biggest value of a traditional engineering education is that you learn how to solve problems. This works very well in the software industry where X is supposed to do Y but does Z. First year: Traditional coresciences. Physics, Chemistry. Very structured problem sets (well defined problems, well defined answers) Second year: Core engineering classes. Statics, Dynamics, Materials. More specialized problem sets, less definition. Third year: The hardest year. Labs, beginning of long-term group projects. Problems are now more general. Doing a homework problem now is much more difficult because if you get off track early - you don't get the textbook correct answer. Lots of engineering labs where you have to collect a lot of raw data and use a cookbook of formulas to write the analysis. Routine now on tests to not solve many problems in time allotted. It's really a test of your problem solving process now. The point is you could probably solve all of the problems given enough time but in the real world you have time constraints so the faculty is helping you adjust your analytical skills to be quicker. Fourth year: This is the year where you work on a Capstone project. Very big problem with some constraints. All the design is up to you. It's your problem to solve.

by whopa 16y ago

WalterBright 16y ago

I benefited greatly from the courses I took at Caltech. What I learned was: 1. how to learn 2. organized methods of thinking about problems 3. how to separate truth from crap 4. how to break down large problems into solvable small ones I'm not sure how these can be learned effectively through self study.

srgseg 16y ago
Interesting, please could you elaborate on the specific courses/experiences which helped you learn these things (esp no. 3) My experience of a CS degree was being drowned in information but not anything nearly as useful as that which you've noted.
- WalterBright 16y ago
  None of the courses were labeled with "organized thinking" or "separating truth from crap". Learning that stuff was a side effect of probably 80% of the standard curriculum. Separating truth from crap is essentially what the scientific method is all about. If there is data that doesn't fit the theory, no matter how small, the theory is wrong and needs to be revised. A theory may explain existing facts, but it is useless unless it can make predictions that can then be tested. Stuff like that.
moron4hire 16y ago
Being homeschooled, I had learned these things prior to college. Perhaps that is why I didn't get much out of it.
palish 16y ago
I'm not sure how [1. how to learn 2. organized methods of thinking about problems 3. how to separate truth from crap 4. how to break down large problems into solvable small ones] can be learned effectively through self study. Perhaps you should break down that problem into solvable small ones? Then you could determine how I was able to teach myself each of those with only a high school education.
- mayank 16y ago
  > Perhaps you should break down that problem into solvable small ones? Then you could determine how I was able to teach myself each of those with only a high school education. This is something I've heard a lot. I don't mean to disparage your accomplishments, but how exactly do you know what you're missing with a college/grad school education? It's fallacious to think that a college education will instantly make you smarter, but it's also fallacious to think that a college education is worthless.
  - WalterBright 16y ago
    Pretty much everyone believes they are organized thinkers, can separate truth from crap, etc. I certainly thought so when I entered college. After 4 years of Caltech, though, I emerged with the realization that I didn't know much about any of that before. While maybe I still am not an organized thinker, I could tell that I had gotten a great deal better at it. Additionally, when I work with others, even though they have college degrees, I can often see the disorganized thinking and lack of problem solving skills. I see this a lot in the programming world, for example. Many programmers, when confronted a bug, flail about essentially at random hoping to get lucky and fix it. If you show them how to approach finding the problem in an organized manner, it's like you're speaking a foreign language to them (or at least I'm a very bad teacher, which is entirely possible). For another example, I once had the job of figuring out the force involved when a screw drive ran full tilt into its stops. I worked out the math, etc., coming up with a formula for the force, plugged the numbers in, and got the answer. My colleague nearby (with a 4 year engineering degree as well) asked me in amazement "what book did you get that formula from?" If you're an EE, and you carry around a card that has printed on it V=IR, R=V/I, I=V/R then you do not know how to solve problems - you learned how to formula plug. Some people can learn all this stuff from self-study. The risk with self-study, however, is that you may not be aware of where the gaps in your skills are, especially if they are difficult to quantify like "organized thinking" or "problem solving skills" or "ability to separate truth from crap".

danielsoneg 16y ago

School gives you three things: Exposure to a range of scenarios, a safe place to screw up, and someone who knows what they're doing to show you the right way to do it. Like everything else in life, though, you get out what you put in - you can't just show up for four years and magically expect to know what you're doing. There's still a whole hell of a lot to be gained if you do more than just the rote assignments, though, and I'd wager four years spent actively learning at a university yields better than four years studying by yourself for equal levels of commitment.

idoh 16y ago

I think it would be hard to be a competent lawyer without going to law school. Good law schools change the way you think, and that's not something that you can get self studying. It is true that you can pass the bar without going to school. In fact law school does not prepare you for the bar exam. Most people take a supplemental course after law school just to prep for the exam. I am pretty sure that a reasonably bright person could just do the prep and pass the exam. But the exam itself is sort of a joke in that the material you are tested on is pretty orthogonal to what you'd need to know to be a good lawyer.

whopa 16y ago
I've heard this expressed many times from various people: law schools love engineers because they already know how to think analytically and don't have to be taught that. This is independent of whether they learned any form of engineering in school or not. As far as the bar exam being a joke, if that's true, that's broken. If the more important thing is going to law school for 3 years, then why put so much emphasis on the bar exam t all? There are people who graduate to law school but never pass the exam, or the ones who try and try again and pass it on their 4th or 5th try, if they went to school why isn't that meaningful? Either the schooling isn't all that it's cracked up to be or the metric doesn't measure the right things, but either way there's an impedance mismatch which means the system is broken.
- wallflower 16y ago
  > law schools love engineers because they already know how to think analytically and don't have to be taught that I went to engineering school as an undergraduate. In my opinion, the biggest value of a traditional engineering education is that you learn how to solve problems. This works very well in the software industry where X is supposed to do Y but does Z. First year: Traditional coresciences. Physics, Chemistry. Very structured problem sets (well defined problems, well defined answers) Second year: Core engineering classes. Statics, Dynamics, Materials. More specialized problem sets, less definition. Third year: The hardest year. Labs, beginning of long-term group projects. Problems are now more general. Doing a homework problem now is much more difficult because if you get off track early - you don't get the textbook correct answer. Lots of engineering labs where you have to collect a lot of raw data and use a cookbook of formulas to write the analysis. Routine now on tests to not solve many problems in time allotted. It's really a test of your problem solving process now. The point is you could probably solve all of the problems given enough time but in the real world you have time constraints so the faculty is helping you adjust your analytical skills to be quicker. Fourth year: This is the year where you work on a Capstone project. Very big problem with some constraints. All the design is up to you. It's your problem to solve.