6 ms·

> But I wouldn’t dismiss its value in being taught how to think. Few universities teach how to think. Most teach what to think. Critical thinking, reasoning th

by mfer 4y ago

> But I wouldn’t dismiss its value in being taught how to think. Few universities teach how to think. Most teach what to think. Critical thinking, reasoning through ideas and concepts, and research are often lacking. > I wish there was a bigger focus in physics, math, and philosophy for those who didn’t know what to do I don't buy that. You can't by a psychiatrist. You can't be a medical doctor or nutritionist. There are a lot of useful things in this word, that we collectively need, you can't do with those. But, I do think teaching philosophy would be useful. That involves learning how to think things through which isn't, for the most part, taught. > If a person is smart enough to receive it, more education is almost always good. There is an error in reasoning right here. The implication from the context is that you need to go to a college or university to be more educated. That's not true. It's also a complex question to ask, what level of education on what does who need?

sidlls 4y ago
The context within the social and economic structure of society matters, too. Very few good quality careers are accessible for the self-taught individual.
- mfer 4y ago
  Who defines good quality? Is this compensation? Is this satisfaction with what you do? Is this ability to pay your bills and save enough? How much does one need (what's enough)? This is all complicated and we tend to focus on compensation. That's why so many people stay in jobs for the pay while they hate the work. There are lots of good quality jobs out there if you expand your definition beyond "highest compensation". I know people who switched and were much happier in trades. They felt far more satisfied, could daily see their accomplishment, and meet their bills (and then some). Where did you get your view on good quality careers from?
  - sidlls 4y ago
    In our society jobs that are satisfying are often not an option (even for the trades), regardless of the pay and regardless of the educational requirements. In the context of this thread it is (almost) all about compensation. "Good quality" is in the sense that one can earn enough to "meet their bills (and then some)" and also weather a major event (such as a medical event). Satisfaction may or may not apply.
azinman2 4y ago
MDs require more school on top of college; their major is often unrelated except they have to take pre-med classes. Often times people will go back to a community college or some other schooling option for those classes if they decide they want to go down that route. So you absolutely can be any of those majors and change your position later. Far better than say a communications major, which with psychology are the two main majors for people who are in college but don’t know what to focus on. You can self-educate but very, very few have the capacity to get anywhere near what you’d get from a dedicated professional walking you through a curriculum in a context where you’re dedicating 4 years to the endeavor. Of course not everyone “needs” to be more educated to have a functional life, but society is much better off when more of the public is educated. You can look around the world at the varying results of that, and it’s consequences.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones that would thrive in a proper high education system. Unfortunately, we're turning them away for various reasons (financial, lack of flexibility, etc) and filling rooms full of people who are there just because they were told to be there. It's quite horrendous, people in their 3+ years and they're still just going through the motions for the paper. If you're not there to network and find a job, you're the odd one out. This idea of treating these institutions as places for continual higher learning is just not the norm. It's an interesting predicament, more education for everyone is better, yet our designation of colleges/universities as the "last" required tier has stunted many people in many ways.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mtrower 4y ago
    > Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones that would thrive in a proper high education system. That might depend on what you define as 'proper'. These environments are typically tailored toward a certain median individual and if you don't fit that median (above or below), you aren't going to have a good time. In my own experience, I can generally self-educate far better than what I've found in any traditional educational environment available* to me. I just can't deal with the snail's pace of concept introduction, the shallowness of concept exploration, etc. Everything moves so slow and I just tune it out. * What I've seen of MIT's open courseware appeared interesting and well-paced to me, but that's not a route that was ever available to me.
jackmott 4y ago
[dead]

by mfer 4y ago

sidlls 4y ago

The context within the social and economic structure of society matters, too. Very few good quality careers are accessible for the self-taught individual.

mfer 4y ago
Who defines good quality? Is this compensation? Is this satisfaction with what you do? Is this ability to pay your bills and save enough? How much does one need (what's enough)? This is all complicated and we tend to focus on compensation. That's why so many people stay in jobs for the pay while they hate the work. There are lots of good quality jobs out there if you expand your definition beyond "highest compensation". I know people who switched and were much happier in trades. They felt far more satisfied, could daily see their accomplishment, and meet their bills (and then some). Where did you get your view on good quality careers from?
- sidlls 4y ago
  In our society jobs that are satisfying are often not an option (even for the trades), regardless of the pay and regardless of the educational requirements. In the context of this thread it is (almost) all about compensation. "Good quality" is in the sense that one can earn enough to "meet their bills (and then some)" and also weather a major event (such as a medical event). Satisfaction may or may not apply.

azinman2 4y ago

MDs require more school on top of college; their major is often unrelated except they have to take pre-med classes. Often times people will go back to a community college or some other schooling option for those classes if they decide they want to go down that route. So you absolutely can be any of those majors and change your position later. Far better than say a communications major, which with psychology are the two main majors for people who are in college but don’t know what to focus on. You can self-educate but very, very few have the capacity to get anywhere near what you’d get from a dedicated professional walking you through a curriculum in a context where you’re dedicating 4 years to the endeavor. Of course not everyone “needs” to be more educated to have a functional life, but society is much better off when more of the public is educated. You can look around the world at the varying results of that, and it’s consequences.

waboremo 4y ago
Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones that would thrive in a proper high education system. Unfortunately, we're turning them away for various reasons (financial, lack of flexibility, etc) and filling rooms full of people who are there just because they were told to be there. It's quite horrendous, people in their 3+ years and they're still just going through the motions for the paper. If you're not there to network and find a job, you're the odd one out. This idea of treating these institutions as places for continual higher learning is just not the norm. It's an interesting predicament, more education for everyone is better, yet our designation of colleges/universities as the "last" required tier has stunted many people in many ways.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mtrower 4y ago
  > Those that can self-educate effectively are also ones that would thrive in a proper high education system. That might depend on what you define as 'proper'. These environments are typically tailored toward a certain median individual and if you don't fit that median (above or below), you aren't going to have a good time. In my own experience, I can generally self-educate far better than what I've found in any traditional educational environment available* to me. I just can't deal with the snail's pace of concept introduction, the shallowness of concept exploration, etc. Everything moves so slow and I just tune it out. * What I've seen of MIT's open courseware appeared interesting and well-paced to me, but that's not a route that was ever available to me.

jackmott 4y ago

[dead]