6 ms·

I have read the book. He says that engineering degrees are basically the one exception. They're like trade schools. Also, e.g. a social science degree is useful

I have read the book. He says that engineering degrees are basically the one exception. They're like trade schools. Also, e.g. a social science degree is useful if you're going to be a social science professor/academic, but otherwise none of the skills or knowledge are transferable. He also says that having any degree is "worth it" to an individual, monetarily. It's just not worth it to society to require everyone to have education they don't use.

VictorPath 5y ago
> He also says that having any degree is "worth it" to an individual, monetarily. It's just not worth it to society to require everyone to have education they don't use. Half of Finnish people between 35 and 44 have a degree, whereas only 7% of people in that age range from South Africa do, so South Africa must be much better off than Finland.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Fascinating to think that all you have to do is get 43 out of 100 people in South Africa degrees and it will be Finland.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Perhaps it would be. I don't find it at all silly to guess that if a critical percentage of everyone were made to confront more ideas and and generally be made more aware and thoughtful, that the eventual result is more civilized behavior between members. I certainly don't think it helps the situation to use the historical and current state of thimgs as some excuse not to bother trying. You can't create better civilization be decree or force. It can only happen when enough percentage of the population does it for themselves, and they don't when they are ignorant or bubbled.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Fascinating that Colorado right now is Finland.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        No one said that, or anything remotely like that or that implies that. I guess you have a PhD and embody the "exhibit A" counter example eh? Educated yet no better than the uneducated at communication and comprehension. Or let me guess, you only took technical classes. As close to 100% stem as the system would let you. I don't really want to make personal attacks like that but this kind of comment is exactly an example of the topic. What field on what spreadsheet gets what number increased or decreased by one to quantify the cost of this sort of lack of understanding?
        renewiltord 5y ago
        Take a chill pill, my dude. Go out, smell the roses. It’s a beautiful day. Not one to go argue on the Internet.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
        Then why are you?
- EverywhereTrip 5y ago
  No, he's saying that everyone having a degree isn't the difference between Finland and South Africa. If South Africa suddenly had as many degree holders as Finland, it wouldn't suddenly become Finland.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Not sure if you are serious or trolling, but if I'm not mistaken the fallacy here is correlation vs. causation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Correlation_does_not_imply_causation&oldid=1068543028 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Correlation_does_... (see specifically section 3)
Jemaclus 5y ago
> otherwise none of the skills or knowledge are transferable. While I understand the source of this statement and why people often say this, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, at least anecdotally. For example, I have a degree in Theater. Which, on the surface, doesn't transfer well to, say, software engineering or law or accounting or teaching or social work. But is that really true? To pick a popular theatre-related discipline, consider what an actor does: - They show up on time (to scenes, to rehearsal, to performances) - They can memorize vast amounts of material in a relatively short period of time verbatim - They work well with others - They work well individually - They can take direction - They can take constructive criticism - They meet deadlines under pressure (the show must go on!) - They can put themselves in other people's shoes (Method acting, ftw) - They know how to do research (how does a 1940s soldier talk, dress, walk, act?) - They are comfortable speaking in front of groups - They can speak clearly and enunciate appropriately (especially good in a remote world with fuzzy tech!) And so on and so forth... I don't really care what industry you're in, those are desirable qualities for ANY hiring manager! I would be THRILLED if candidates metaphorically walked through the door with evidence of those skill sets under their belt! This is the holy grail of "soft skills" that everyone looks for, whether you're a doctor or a restaurant manager or a postal worker. I've had a lot of jobs in my career, but I've never in my life walked onto a job and known everything I need to know. There's a LOT of on the job training -- so much that I might as well be taking a boot camp at every new job! And so from that perspective, someone who walks in with a theater or really any kind of arts or social science degree and a modicum of Python under their belt is a very, very attractive hire to me. I can teach you our framework of choice and how to run tests and how to use Jira, but I don't have time to teach you how to learn or how to communicate or how to take direction. Anyway, my two cents.
- torbTurret 5y ago
  A fifteen year old cashier at Target can make the same value claim, minus the four year time investment and student debt. Which I think is the author’s point.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    It's a bit more terse than I'd have put it, but I was about to reply along the same lines when I reloaded and saw your comment. While the supermarket employee (for those who don't know Target, it's a USA-specific thing afaik) might not be able to prove some of those things like doing research for a 1940s soldier costume, it's indeed not that hard and doesn't need a university study. Many of GP's points will be much harder to prove than to learn in the first place. And so I would also conclude that years of study might just not be required to start doing the job. Trying to be respectful of an actor's skill, since I truly don't think I could do that job well (or at least not without months or years of trying, and even then idk), it also doesn't strike me as requiring deep study. That's just not required for showing up to work on time (I'm cherry-picking one of the points here, to be fair). Even for IT there's an argument to be made that it's super easy to learn 80% at home and do maybe some hands-on work in a lab with 500 virtual computers (that you wouldn't easily setup by yourself in a realistic manner), then go into the job. After a magazine got me started on HTML with a 3-page explanation at 12yo, things just started rolling from there and I was basically always ahead of what I was expected to know by year x of the study because I had already done stuff out of personal interest. Don't need an N-year study there, either. Engineering (in the sense of building a bridge that stands 100 years) is probably different though.
jccalhoun 5y ago
I've never heard of the book until this thread. How does he define "worth" to society? That seems like a big issue that I wouldn't think it related to proving the math wrong?

VictorPath 5y ago

> He also says that having any degree is "worth it" to an individual, monetarily. It's just not worth it to society to require everyone to have education they don't use. Half of Finnish people between 35 and 44 have a degree, whereas only 7% of people in that age range from South Africa do, so South Africa must be much better off than Finland.

renewiltord 5y ago
Fascinating to think that all you have to do is get 43 out of 100 people in South Africa degrees and it will be Finland.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Perhaps it would be. I don't find it at all silly to guess that if a critical percentage of everyone were made to confront more ideas and and generally be made more aware and thoughtful, that the eventual result is more civilized behavior between members. I certainly don't think it helps the situation to use the historical and current state of thimgs as some excuse not to bother trying. You can't create better civilization be decree or force. It can only happen when enough percentage of the population does it for themselves, and they don't when they are ignorant or bubbled.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Fascinating that Colorado right now is Finland.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      No one said that, or anything remotely like that or that implies that. I guess you have a PhD and embody the "exhibit A" counter example eh? Educated yet no better than the uneducated at communication and comprehension. Or let me guess, you only took technical classes. As close to 100% stem as the system would let you. I don't really want to make personal attacks like that but this kind of comment is exactly an example of the topic. What field on what spreadsheet gets what number increased or decreased by one to quantify the cost of this sort of lack of understanding?
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        Take a chill pill, my dude. Go out, smell the roses. It’s a beautiful day. Not one to go argue on the Internet.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
        Then why are you?
EverywhereTrip 5y ago
No, he's saying that everyone having a degree isn't the difference between Finland and South Africa. If South Africa suddenly had as many degree holders as Finland, it wouldn't suddenly become Finland.
lucb1e 5y ago
Not sure if you are serious or trolling, but if I'm not mistaken the fallacy here is correlation vs. causation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Correlation_does_not_imply_causation&oldid=1068543028 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Correlation_does_... (see specifically section 3)

Jemaclus 5y ago

> otherwise none of the skills or knowledge are transferable. While I understand the source of this statement and why people often say this, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, at least anecdotally. For example, I have a degree in Theater. Which, on the surface, doesn't transfer well to, say, software engineering or law or accounting or teaching or social work. But is that really true? To pick a popular theatre-related discipline, consider what an actor does: - They show up on time (to scenes, to rehearsal, to performances) - They can memorize vast amounts of material in a relatively short period of time verbatim - They work well with others - They work well individually - They can take direction - They can take constructive criticism - They meet deadlines under pressure (the show must go on!) - They can put themselves in other people's shoes (Method acting, ftw) - They know how to do research (how does a 1940s soldier talk, dress, walk, act?) - They are comfortable speaking in front of groups - They can speak clearly and enunciate appropriately (especially good in a remote world with fuzzy tech!) And so on and so forth... I don't really care what industry you're in, those are desirable qualities for ANY hiring manager! I would be THRILLED if candidates metaphorically walked through the door with evidence of those skill sets under their belt! This is the holy grail of "soft skills" that everyone looks for, whether you're a doctor or a restaurant manager or a postal worker. I've had a lot of jobs in my career, but I've never in my life walked onto a job and known everything I need to know. There's a LOT of on the job training -- so much that I might as well be taking a boot camp at every new job! And so from that perspective, someone who walks in with a theater or really any kind of arts or social science degree and a modicum of Python under their belt is a very, very attractive hire to me. I can teach you our framework of choice and how to run tests and how to use Jira, but I don't have time to teach you how to learn or how to communicate or how to take direction. Anyway, my two cents.

torbTurret 5y ago
A fifteen year old cashier at Target can make the same value claim, minus the four year time investment and student debt. Which I think is the author’s point.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  It's a bit more terse than I'd have put it, but I was about to reply along the same lines when I reloaded and saw your comment. While the supermarket employee (for those who don't know Target, it's a USA-specific thing afaik) might not be able to prove some of those things like doing research for a 1940s soldier costume, it's indeed not that hard and doesn't need a university study. Many of GP's points will be much harder to prove than to learn in the first place. And so I would also conclude that years of study might just not be required to start doing the job. Trying to be respectful of an actor's skill, since I truly don't think I could do that job well (or at least not without months or years of trying, and even then idk), it also doesn't strike me as requiring deep study. That's just not required for showing up to work on time (I'm cherry-picking one of the points here, to be fair). Even for IT there's an argument to be made that it's super easy to learn 80% at home and do maybe some hands-on work in a lab with 500 virtual computers (that you wouldn't easily setup by yourself in a realistic manner), then go into the job. After a magazine got me started on HTML with a 3-page explanation at 12yo, things just started rolling from there and I was basically always ahead of what I was expected to know by year x of the study because I had already done stuff out of personal interest. Don't need an N-year study there, either. Engineering (in the sense of building a bridge that stands 100 years) is probably different though.

jccalhoun 5y ago

I've never heard of the book until this thread. How does he define "worth" to society? That seems like a big issue that I wouldn't think it related to proving the math wrong?