5 ms·

In a very similar vein is Bryan Caplan's book "the Case Against Education." In an interview[1] he lays out his argument, roughly, as: > Right. So, the first s

• theLotusGambit 7y ago
  Funnily enough, The Case Against Education made me more comfortable with my place in the education system, because it gave me a better idea of what I'm actually accomplishing as a student. Definitely cleared up a fair bit of angst and resentment for me. I wish I had read it in high school, but better late than never.
• tasogare 7y ago
  > The main story that I am pushing in the book is called signaling I saw this idea a lot in other various threads. As the average HN poster is probably well educated, I wonder if it’s a biais coming from software engineering where most of the skill set is learnt by experience. Anyway, I have a long list of university degree, and I can tell there are indeed differences with autodidacts that learnt the same general fields. The fundamental difference is that university forces one to learn the unfunny parts. For computer science it means for example functional programming, database normal forms, language theory, anything with mathematics inside, etc. Of course, university classes alone are not enough and much like an autodidact much study have to be done alone, which might lead one to conclude that university is not required. But I don’t think it the case.
  • teisman 7y ago
    In the Netherlands, there's a difference between universities (which are a form of scientific education, and often set you up for an MSc), and what they call "universities of applied science" (which are more practical in nature, and set you up a for BSc). Studying computer science to become a software engineer is probably wrong, or at least not the most efficient choice. The study of computer science primarily sets you up to become a _computer scientist_. The "problems" people face with universities are probably more about incorrect expectations of the students rather than false promises by the universities.
  • balfirevic 7y ago
    > I wonder if it’s a biais coming from software engineering where most of the skill set is learnt by experience For the record, Bryan Caplan is an economist.
    • knolax 7y ago
      So a modern day shaman who does rain dances. You don't need much of an education to the type of bullshitting he does for a living either.
      • tasogare 7y ago
        Yes, if anything it gives him even less credibility to speak about education. Wikipedia mentions that he is an "anarcho-capitalism", so he's basically trying to sell his main ideological framework without any regard to real consequence on people lives or society.
        • DataWorker 7y ago
          And he is a supported of free market labor policies. Can’t have open borders and state run big education without conflicts. At least he’s consistent in his thinking.
  • klibertp 7y ago
    > The fundamental difference is that university forces one to learn the unfunny parts. For computer science it means for example functional programming, database normal forms, language theory, anything with mathematics inside, etc. Yeah, I agree totally, the difference is fundamental and really worrying. To think that the university managed to even convince you, that there are "unfunny" parts in programming! Pretty sad if you ask me... > But I don’t think it the case. Well, of course. You invested so much time and (if you're unlucky enough to be living in such places) money into it, it's obvious that you will defend it, consciously or not. In reality, a university is just a place that provides a set of services to the populace. Like all such places, it comes with a set of rules. And that's it - if you can find a replacement for the services you need, then it really "is not required" to get them specifically from the university. It may be hard to replace the "signaling" part of it, but it doesn't seem impossible - there are at least many well-documented examples of it being possible - while almost all the other services are already cheaply available online and in hackerspaces. With the added bonus that in the latter you interact with people genuinely interested in the subject, not people who came to pay their way to a "good education", who find said subject... unfunny.
• WalterBright 7y ago
  Your earnings go up as you acquire job skills that fewer and fewer people have. Supply & Demand. I know skilled C++ programmers that pull in compensation packages of a million dollars a year. It's not because of signalling or certification. It's because a very competent programmer can save or make the employer a great deal of money. For more conventional skills, you'll never make much money as an engineer if you skip the math classes. It's obvious which ones can't do the math on the job, and they're not going to get the kind of assignments that lead to promotions.
  • vkou 7y ago
    > Your earnings go up as you acquire job skills that fewer and fewer people have. Supply & Demand. No, they don't. Very few people are able to juggle 8 pins, but my earnings will not go up if I acquire that skill. Your earnings go up when you acquire a job skill that people are willing to pay a lot of money for. > For more conventional skills, you'll never make much money as an engineer if you skip the math classes. I Define 'much money'. You can easily make 400K/year at FANG, without having the foggiest idea of how to do linear algebra, calculus, arithmetic, statistics, or really anything but interview O(N) analysis.
    • WalterBright 7y ago
      > Very few people are able to juggle 8 pins, but my earnings will not go up if I acquire that skill. That's because it's not a JOB skill.
      • vkou 7y ago
        It is if you're a juggler, but even the best jugglers in the world don't get paid well. Juggling and mathematics are both useful skills, but 95% of SWEs don't use any for their jobs, and aren't going to get paid more if they pick either one up. The other 5% aren't always paid more.
• ThomPete 7y ago
  This is what i call the difference between getting an education and getting educated.