6 ms·

I agree and not even remotely jokingly. Higher education outside of STEM has been nonsense for quite some time. Inside of STEM, it has been an outdated form o

I agree and not even remotely jokingly. Higher education outside of STEM has been nonsense for quite some time. Inside of STEM, it has been an outdated form of education for just as long. The encroachment of socialism into the educational sphere needs to accelerate. The sooner it destroys itself the better.

rsj_hn 5y ago
That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities. So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation. I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence tell you all that much about someone. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
  - alex_sf 5y ago
    It’s not solely sufficient, but absolutely the baseline for excellence in any technical field.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I don’t think objective measures of physical strength tell you much about someone either, but if you’re testing strength to find the strongest people (for whatever reason), I’d still recommend using standardized methods.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    How many dropouts have successfully designed a jet engine? any of the critical parts on a rocket? a suspension bridge? a building more than 10 stories high? a submarine hull? a utility powerplant?
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      How many have been given the opportunity to do so? Could a pure apprenticeship model without universities (but still with lots of theory) work for engineering professions?
      - b9a2cab5 5y ago
        Lambda School shows it doesn't work for software engineering. A so-called "apprenticeship" model for something like mechanical engineering would basically be the exact same set of (difficult) math and physics courses but without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts.
        alphabettsy 5y ago
        Or maybe Lambda school doesn’t work?
        nitrogen 5y ago
        without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts. Idk, I can imagine a class of "dropout" who would find that very appealing. And I've worked with devs who used Lambda or other bootcamps to transition from another technical/professional career into software, so it's not a completely useless model.
  - boardwaalk 5y ago
    Society doesn't operate on the level of outliers and anecdotes, though. This seems like a common mistake people make. Making small changes to how well we're educating people over large numbers and over time will make big differences.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence don’t tell you all that much about someone. Unfortunately that's not true. And we have a lot of data that this isn't true. I recommend reading "The Ape That Understood the Universe" for an overview https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/dp/1108425046 https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/... Part of the problem here is that people feel qualified to weigh in with their feelings of how they want the world to be, completely ignoring all the evidence and data. It's that type of confident denial of reality that is at the heart of this UC decision "Well, my uncle Jim is really smart and he was always bad at tests!" That's basically the level of discourse happening here when making public policy, and it's shameful.
- throwaway34241 5y ago
  > So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status I also disagree with these sort of decisions but this seems a bit hyperbolic. Certain institutions will probably admit fewer students who are able to excel in those fields, and if the change is large enough it will affect the quality of those degree programs (although in probably any admissions process talented students will be better able to game it). But the likely eventual outcome to that seems like it would be other institutions attracting the most talented students and professors. It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this, although I could imagine STEM being increasingly concentrated at universities with that focus like Caltech instead of general liberal-arts schools. It also might be kind of interesting if the brightest students tried to excel more in things that aren't directly competitive (kind of like Thiel fellows), although I don't think that's the purpose behind these sorts of changes.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    "It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this" Think for a bit how many things that were hard to imagine 10 years ago are now common place in the corporate world. Social conformity pressure is a real b*tch. The best we can hope is that the occasional larger-than-life professor will be left alone to teach his craft the way he sees fit. Pray that your kids have a chance to meet one of them and the wisdom to subject themselves to the gauntlet.
    - throwaway34241 5y ago
      The corporate world isn't a bad analogy. But corporates are still by and large very profitable, some companies operate as they always have (although that isn't newsworthy, and it isn't a marketing point), and on this specific topic (testing) leetcode type questions are still ubiquitous. If social trends seriously impaired companies' competitiveness I might expect to see the companies that are more on board underperform. But when I think of recent corporate failures (maybe Google failing to compete with FB on chat / VR / Google plus etc), garden variety mismanagement still seems like it has more impact. So I also disagree with the policy, but worrying about "transforming the economy to third world status" like the OP seems like it is going overboard. If suboptimal policy choices or social trends destroyed society it would have been destroyed a long time ago many times over (and San Francisco wouldn't be a startup hub).
- mrjangles 5y ago
  I learned absolutely nothing in my degree that I couldn't have learned from a book. In fact, everything I learned in my degree was from a book. The lecturers themselves were often terrible, and the lectures would have been far better if I was watching them on youtube and could rewind anyway. The future learning institutes will simply be places that administers tests and organize group projects at 1/10th the cost of current universities.

rsj_hn 5y ago

That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities. So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation. I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.

alphabettsy 5y ago
I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence tell you all that much about someone. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  It’s not solely sufficient, but absolutely the baseline for excellence in any technical field.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I don’t think objective measures of physical strength tell you much about someone either, but if you’re testing strength to find the strongest people (for whatever reason), I’d still recommend using standardized methods.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  How many dropouts have successfully designed a jet engine? any of the critical parts on a rocket? a suspension bridge? a building more than 10 stories high? a submarine hull? a utility powerplant?
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    How many have been given the opportunity to do so? Could a pure apprenticeship model without universities (but still with lots of theory) work for engineering professions?
    - b9a2cab5 5y ago
      Lambda School shows it doesn't work for software engineering. A so-called "apprenticeship" model for something like mechanical engineering would basically be the exact same set of (difficult) math and physics courses but without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts.
      - alphabettsy 5y ago
        Or maybe Lambda school doesn’t work?
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts. Idk, I can imagine a class of "dropout" who would find that very appealing. And I've worked with devs who used Lambda or other bootcamps to transition from another technical/professional career into software, so it's not a completely useless model.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  Society doesn't operate on the level of outliers and anecdotes, though. This seems like a common mistake people make. Making small changes to how well we're educating people over large numbers and over time will make big differences.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence don’t tell you all that much about someone. Unfortunately that's not true. And we have a lot of data that this isn't true. I recommend reading "The Ape That Understood the Universe" for an overview https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/dp/1108425046 https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/... Part of the problem here is that people feel qualified to weigh in with their feelings of how they want the world to be, completely ignoring all the evidence and data. It's that type of confident denial of reality that is at the heart of this UC decision "Well, my uncle Jim is really smart and he was always bad at tests!" That's basically the level of discourse happening here when making public policy, and it's shameful.
throwaway34241 5y ago
> So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status I also disagree with these sort of decisions but this seems a bit hyperbolic. Certain institutions will probably admit fewer students who are able to excel in those fields, and if the change is large enough it will affect the quality of those degree programs (although in probably any admissions process talented students will be better able to game it). But the likely eventual outcome to that seems like it would be other institutions attracting the most talented students and professors. It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this, although I could imagine STEM being increasingly concentrated at universities with that focus like Caltech instead of general liberal-arts schools. It also might be kind of interesting if the brightest students tried to excel more in things that aren't directly competitive (kind of like Thiel fellows), although I don't think that's the purpose behind these sorts of changes.
- angelzen 5y ago
  "It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this" Think for a bit how many things that were hard to imagine 10 years ago are now common place in the corporate world. Social conformity pressure is a real b*tch. The best we can hope is that the occasional larger-than-life professor will be left alone to teach his craft the way he sees fit. Pray that your kids have a chance to meet one of them and the wisdom to subject themselves to the gauntlet.
  - throwaway34241 5y ago
    The corporate world isn't a bad analogy. But corporates are still by and large very profitable, some companies operate as they always have (although that isn't newsworthy, and it isn't a marketing point), and on this specific topic (testing) leetcode type questions are still ubiquitous. If social trends seriously impaired companies' competitiveness I might expect to see the companies that are more on board underperform. But when I think of recent corporate failures (maybe Google failing to compete with FB on chat / VR / Google plus etc), garden variety mismanagement still seems like it has more impact. So I also disagree with the policy, but worrying about "transforming the economy to third world status" like the OP seems like it is going overboard. If suboptimal policy choices or social trends destroyed society it would have been destroyed a long time ago many times over (and San Francisco wouldn't be a startup hub).
mrjangles 5y ago
I learned absolutely nothing in my degree that I couldn't have learned from a book. In fact, everything I learned in my degree was from a book. The lecturers themselves were often terrible, and the lectures would have been far better if I was watching them on youtube and could rewind anyway. The future learning institutes will simply be places that administers tests and organize group projects at 1/10th the cost of current universities.