2 ms·

Realizing that my professors were being paid by the university and not by me, and that they had no natural incentives to ensure I actually passed the course, wa

Realizing that my professors were being paid by the university and not by me, and that they had no natural incentives to ensure I actually passed the course, was a necessary wakeup call. At some point I realized I was spending that money on the opportunity rather than the outcome. I just wish I had clocked it sooner. I never did graduate, but the classes I did complete, when actually exerting the required effort, taught me what I needed to know. Once I had learned how to make myself learn, I found that I was able to adapt adequately to the workforce and the degree became little more than a signal. It's ... odd, to have arrived at this conclusion. On paper, the decision to drop out once I had a real IT job would be seen as a failure. But it's not like I ever stopped learning. I love to challenge myself to learn new things. And I do feel like GPT and friends somewhat short circuits that process. It's handy for a quick lookup in a subject I'm not interested in, but to actually learn a thing I need to practice doing it. There is no substitute.

svilen_dobrev 2y ago
> had learned how to make myself learn Someone told me ~30y ago, that the purpose of the higher education is: so you learn how to learn. (okay, ought to be). Not the memorizing, or the get-drunk parties :) Now, whether the system-as-is actually even targets that, is a separate question. So if one achieves that earlier, yeah, no need to waste further years there. Although as with most institutional artefacts.. , these diplomas - let's call them <tags> - are still used across the institutions, to prove institution-"tax" has been paid.
- kohbo 2y ago
  I think that's a bit flawed. The purpose of lower education is learn how to learn. By the time you get to university is when you apply those skills to really learn. At least, that's how I feel.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I dunno. I passed all the undergrad maths through calc 3, diffeq, linear, and a 400 stats class, ~20 years ago. I could probably solve a calc 2 problem (which was harder for me than calc 3), but I would need a textbook and an hour or two. Did I learn it? Or did I learn how to teach myself it? I would argue the latter.
  - thesagan 2y ago
    I never cared for the "learning how to learn" line. We start from infancy and learn to walk and talk, albeit in that very special way. We are always learning, every day. For me personally, earning by bachelor's and master's degree was a continuation of K-12 and I made sure to be a top performer. The looming debt was the underlying, motivating factor. Looking back, I learned most outside after K-12 was done for the day and I was free to explore and get hurt.
    - Izkata 2y ago
      That phrase is a thing because K-12 is structured as just learning what the teacher tells you. In undergraduate degrees, the professors are more like guideposts and you can't learn everything in their lectures - you have to figure out and understand the material yourself and most people upon finishing K-12 can't do that. I also wasn't one of them, so I also had no trouble in college, but I knew a lot of people this applied to.
  - gmac 2y ago
    Well, maybe the purpose of higher education is to learn how to learn _for yourself_. That is: to find sources, read them, evaluate them, and synthesize them into a conclusion.

svilen_dobrev 2y ago

> had learned how to make myself learn Someone told me ~30y ago, that the purpose of the higher education is: so you learn how to learn. (okay, ought to be). Not the memorizing, or the get-drunk parties :) Now, whether the system-as-is actually even targets that, is a separate question. So if one achieves that earlier, yeah, no need to waste further years there. Although as with most institutional artefacts.. , these diplomas - let's call them <tags> - are still used across the institutions, to prove institution-"tax" has been paid.

kohbo 2y ago
I think that's a bit flawed. The purpose of lower education is learn how to learn. By the time you get to university is when you apply those skills to really learn. At least, that's how I feel.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I dunno. I passed all the undergrad maths through calc 3, diffeq, linear, and a 400 stats class, ~20 years ago. I could probably solve a calc 2 problem (which was harder for me than calc 3), but I would need a textbook and an hour or two. Did I learn it? Or did I learn how to teach myself it? I would argue the latter.
- thesagan 2y ago
  I never cared for the "learning how to learn" line. We start from infancy and learn to walk and talk, albeit in that very special way. We are always learning, every day. For me personally, earning by bachelor's and master's degree was a continuation of K-12 and I made sure to be a top performer. The looming debt was the underlying, motivating factor. Looking back, I learned most outside after K-12 was done for the day and I was free to explore and get hurt.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    That phrase is a thing because K-12 is structured as just learning what the teacher tells you. In undergraduate degrees, the professors are more like guideposts and you can't learn everything in their lectures - you have to figure out and understand the material yourself and most people upon finishing K-12 can't do that. I also wasn't one of them, so I also had no trouble in college, but I knew a lot of people this applied to.
- gmac 2y ago
  Well, maybe the purpose of higher education is to learn how to learn _for yourself_. That is: to find sources, read them, evaluate them, and synthesize them into a conclusion.