5 ms·

Masters of None: The Flawed Logic of One-Size-Fits-All Education

44 points by EA-3167 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
Cost. Those tutors don't come cheap. Moving from university for a tested elite to general access altered the money component and now, we achieve a lower peak for more people. I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one, and seminars with 10 of us. How little we knew of what was to come.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Very much so, part of it is undoubtedly the result of changing social norms, politics, and a broadening middle class... part of it is an increased population and changing economics from globalization and other factors.
  - ggm 2y ago
    I will say as a very average product during elitist times I do not personally have a problem with more average uplift than just a spike of brilliance. I suspect I am swimming against the "10x" zeitgeist here but I'm unconvinced geniuses at scale do a much as people want to think. That said, I love being the dumbest person in a room.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      Without in any way trying to draw the collective wrath, I think it's worth saying that being "10x" isn't really brilliance, it's just high productivity. This is doubly true when the work being done is not exactly groundbreaking. Still putting aside the world of tech, we definitely benefit from the existence of geniuses in a way that enhances the lives and careers of vast numbers of people. Ideally we'd make room in education for everyone from special needs up to especially gifted, but as you say... money.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one When I did my undergrad, tutorials were usually 2:1, except during the first year. It sounds expensive, but consider: - we were only studying two courses at a time, so we only had two tutorials per week - there were only 8 weeks per term, so 24 weeks per year - 2 x 24 is 48 - let's say the tutor needs to be paid $100 for the session and $100 for skimming the essays beforehand; that's $100 per student - 48 x $100 is less than $5k - in the US, even state schools charge much more than $5k per year
downboots 2y ago
But the fast food drive through model sells and scales better than worrying about nutrition
- downboots 2y ago
  you might be asked to eat your soup with a fork, too
rahimnathwani 2y ago
Mastery learning and one-on-one learning aren’t cost-efficient at scale. For the same price as 'out of state' tuition at UC Berkeley, you could hire a $100/hour tutor for 1:1 sessions, 8 hours a week.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Yeah but you wouldn't get access to active research projects, equipment (including lab equipment and super-computers), and various other programs. The point of universities has always been network effects, not the quality of pedagogy of individual professors. Universities also usually have free tutoring centers. So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff. Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload. I'm not talking about 8 hours per week of studying. I'm talking about 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring. Those 8 hours would be used to improve the effectiveness of the other 32 to 40 hours the student spends studying. At Oxford, undergraduates in humanities and social sciences get 2 hours per week of lectures, and 2 hours per week of 1:1 or 2:1 tutorials. That's half the 8 hours I'm suggesting (and even less when you consider that Oxford has only 24 weeks of term per year). Do you think those students are taking an 'absurdly low courseload'? So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff. At which US university does every student get an average of 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring?
    - Cpoll 2y ago
      > At Oxford, undergraduates in humanities and social sciences get 2 hours per week of lectures Per course, right?
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
tkgally 2y ago
It's a good article, but I kept waiting for a suggestion that never arrived: that perhaps individualized tutoring can be provided effectively by interactive AI. I don't know how well ChatGPT et al. would work if applied at scale as part of a mastery-based curriculum. I especially wonder if students would be as motivated to learn by chatbots as they are by human interaction. But considering the low cost and ready availability of LLM tutors, it's at least a possibility worth considering.
mrbluecoat 2y ago
> In short, the problem comes down to scarcity Exactly. One-on-one tutoring isn't scalable.

44 points by EA-3167 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

Cost. Those tutors don't come cheap. Moving from university for a tested elite to general access altered the money component and now, we achieve a lower peak for more people. I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one, and seminars with 10 of us. How little we knew of what was to come.

EA-3167 2y ago
Very much so, part of it is undoubtedly the result of changing social norms, politics, and a broadening middle class... part of it is an increased population and changing economics from globalization and other factors.
- ggm 2y ago
  I will say as a very average product during elitist times I do not personally have a problem with more average uplift than just a spike of brilliance. I suspect I am swimming against the "10x" zeitgeist here but I'm unconvinced geniuses at scale do a much as people want to think. That said, I love being the dumbest person in a room.
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    Without in any way trying to draw the collective wrath, I think it's worth saying that being "10x" isn't really brilliance, it's just high productivity. This is doubly true when the work being done is not exactly groundbreaking. Still putting aside the world of tech, we definitely benefit from the existence of geniuses in a way that enhances the lives and careers of vast numbers of people. Ideally we'd make room in education for everyone from special needs up to especially gifted, but as you say... money.
rahimnathwani 2y ago
I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one When I did my undergrad, tutorials were usually 2:1, except during the first year. It sounds expensive, but consider: - we were only studying two courses at a time, so we only had two tutorials per week - there were only 8 weeks per term, so 24 weeks per year - 2 x 24 is 48 - let's say the tutor needs to be paid $100 for the session and $100 for skimming the essays beforehand; that's $100 per student - 48 x $100 is less than $5k - in the US, even state schools charge much more than $5k per year

downboots 2y ago

But the fast food drive through model sells and scales better than worrying about nutrition

downboots 2y ago
you might be asked to eat your soup with a fork, too

rahimnathwani 2y ago

Mastery learning and one-on-one learning aren’t cost-efficient at scale. For the same price as 'out of state' tuition at UC Berkeley, you could hire a $100/hour tutor for 1:1 sessions, 8 hours a week.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
Yeah but you wouldn't get access to active research projects, equipment (including lab equipment and super-computers), and various other programs. The point of universities has always been network effects, not the quality of pedagogy of individual professors. Universities also usually have free tutoring centers. So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff. Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload. I'm not talking about 8 hours per week of studying. I'm talking about 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring. Those 8 hours would be used to improve the effectiveness of the other 32 to 40 hours the student spends studying. At Oxford, undergraduates in humanities and social sciences get 2 hours per week of lectures, and 2 hours per week of 1:1 or 2:1 tutorials. That's half the 8 hours I'm suggesting (and even less when you consider that Oxford has only 24 weeks of term per year). Do you think those students are taking an 'absurdly low courseload'? So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff. At which US university does every student get an average of 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring?
  - Cpoll 2y ago
    > At Oxford, undergraduates in humanities and social sciences get 2 hours per week of lectures Per course, right?
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago

tkgally 2y ago

It's a good article, but I kept waiting for a suggestion that never arrived: that perhaps individualized tutoring can be provided effectively by interactive AI. I don't know how well ChatGPT et al. would work if applied at scale as part of a mastery-based curriculum. I especially wonder if students would be as motivated to learn by chatbots as they are by human interaction. But considering the low cost and ready availability of LLM tutors, it's at least a possibility worth considering.

mrbluecoat 2y ago

> In short, the problem comes down to scarcity Exactly. One-on-one tutoring isn't scalable.