5 ms·

Counterpoint: Teaching yourself how to become a domain expert is a life-skill of the 21st century. Colleges should teach you how to become a domain expert by te

Counterpoint: Teaching yourself how to become a domain expert is a life-skill of the 21st century. Colleges should teach you how to become a domain expert by teaching you the skills to do so, and giving you the opportunity to do so in a specific domain. "I'm good at collaborating but can't actually make anything" seems to be the result of the system Blank discussed. You just can't replace 3 years of domain expertise building with 1.5 and assume nothing will change. Expect for the occasional project/elective during undergrad, I would leave the learning of how to collaborate to post-collegiate studies. Learning how to learn is the goal of college.

PaulHoule 16y ago
Sure, but no matter how you slice it, you need to put 10,000 hours in to become an expert in something. That's a lot.
- tom_b 16y ago
  Agreed. I have seen several "integrative" degree programs that attempt to combine business skills and some other program and the end result is always that the deeper, tougher (and thus, maybe more immersive coursework?) falls by the wayside. Industry (even startups) are always looking for training from universities to more closely match the applied skills that industry most clearly "needs" at the moment. I'm ambivalent about the necessity of university training for many fields today, but oppose tightly-coupled university/industry programs. Down this path lie blub schools . . . Which is quite different from saying that you shouldn't spend some time doing industry specific training (internships, apprenticeships, etc). I consider my undergrad CS experience quite successful and it was precisely the balance between the academic, fundamental CS courses and the applied, get-shit-done real world that made it work for me.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Has there actually been any rigorous study of the 10,000 hour figure? I really don't believe it or the Gladwell's book because it discounts actual talent. It seems like the great a way to keep someone from finding their actual talent, much like giving awards for participation and having no "winners".
  - PaulHoule 16y ago
    I don't know about rigorous studies, but it seems like common sense to me (though you might get that 10k down to 5k or 3k in some situations) Most people take at least 5 years to get a PhD, pro athletes take at least that long to get established, even Justin Bieber worked really hard at making music when he was a little kid. 10k hours is also roughly the timescale involved with children learning language. You can certainly see people who seem come out of the blue, like Sylvester Stallone's success with Rocky, you usually find that there was a lot of hard work in the background. Stallone was playing bit parts, writing scripts, and lifting weights for a few years before he got his break. Certainly his acting, writing, directing, and bodybuilding progressed considerably after he got big.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      I really not sure it is common sense. I believe you have to have some talent or any amount of practice isn't going to help. I could spend 10,000 hours trying to sing, but it is not going to help, I just don't have that type of voice. I don't discount people's hard work at improving a talent, but I don't think the hours get you there. The all-it-takes-is-10,000-hours vibe of the book seems to be incorrect.
      - PaulHoule 16y ago
        Sure, natural talent helps, but you need natural talent + 10k hours to get world class performance. There's no shortcut, unless you count being in the right place at the right time and having no competition.
        protomyth 16y ago
        I don't think natural talent "helps", I truly believe it is a prerequisite.
Supermighty 16y ago
I feel you're right, that knowing how to collaborate doesn't replace knowing how to do your job, but businesses are not finding acceptable hires from graduating students. Blank acknowledges this and offers a solution. Maybe it won't be the silver bullet you're looking for but at least he's trying. Maybe we're both wrong. Maybe business do want hires who can collaborate over peak skill at their actual work.

PaulHoule 16y ago

Sure, but no matter how you slice it, you need to put 10,000 hours in to become an expert in something. That's a lot.

tom_b 16y ago
Agreed. I have seen several "integrative" degree programs that attempt to combine business skills and some other program and the end result is always that the deeper, tougher (and thus, maybe more immersive coursework?) falls by the wayside. Industry (even startups) are always looking for training from universities to more closely match the applied skills that industry most clearly "needs" at the moment. I'm ambivalent about the necessity of university training for many fields today, but oppose tightly-coupled university/industry programs. Down this path lie blub schools . . . Which is quite different from saying that you shouldn't spend some time doing industry specific training (internships, apprenticeships, etc). I consider my undergrad CS experience quite successful and it was precisely the balance between the academic, fundamental CS courses and the applied, get-shit-done real world that made it work for me.
protomyth 16y ago
Has there actually been any rigorous study of the 10,000 hour figure? I really don't believe it or the Gladwell's book because it discounts actual talent. It seems like the great a way to keep someone from finding their actual talent, much like giving awards for participation and having no "winners".
- PaulHoule 16y ago
  I don't know about rigorous studies, but it seems like common sense to me (though you might get that 10k down to 5k or 3k in some situations) Most people take at least 5 years to get a PhD, pro athletes take at least that long to get established, even Justin Bieber worked really hard at making music when he was a little kid. 10k hours is also roughly the timescale involved with children learning language. You can certainly see people who seem come out of the blue, like Sylvester Stallone's success with Rocky, you usually find that there was a lot of hard work in the background. Stallone was playing bit parts, writing scripts, and lifting weights for a few years before he got his break. Certainly his acting, writing, directing, and bodybuilding progressed considerably after he got big.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I really not sure it is common sense. I believe you have to have some talent or any amount of practice isn't going to help. I could spend 10,000 hours trying to sing, but it is not going to help, I just don't have that type of voice. I don't discount people's hard work at improving a talent, but I don't think the hours get you there. The all-it-takes-is-10,000-hours vibe of the book seems to be incorrect.
    - PaulHoule 16y ago
      Sure, natural talent helps, but you need natural talent + 10k hours to get world class performance. There's no shortcut, unless you count being in the right place at the right time and having no competition.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        I don't think natural talent "helps", I truly believe it is a prerequisite.

Supermighty 16y ago

I feel you're right, that knowing how to collaborate doesn't replace knowing how to do your job, but businesses are not finding acceptable hires from graduating students. Blank acknowledges this and offers a solution. Maybe it won't be the silver bullet you're looking for but at least he's trying. Maybe we're both wrong. Maybe business do want hires who can collaborate over peak skill at their actual work.