4 ms·

I thought these wunderkinds were supposed to change the world. :) No one argues that these are bright people, the problem is I think this "fellowship" was a lot

I thought these wunderkinds were supposed to change the world. :) No one argues that these are bright people, the problem is I think this "fellowship" was a lot of hype to promote an idea that ... I don't know, where's the fruit? Sure, there are autodidacts, but as I always say, they are outliers. I do find the education focused ones interesting, in "oh boy" sort of way. We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there. I feel like this view is so prevalent in our world of computing because there are really 1) many outliers that are great autodidacts and brilliant programmers (but not as many as is claimed) and 2) there are also many that believe they don't need any kind of education because they saw a YouTube on making RoR apps and follow JS blogs but I don't think the rest of the world is really like this.

randomdata 14y ago
It has only been one year. College graduate-bound students still have at least three more years to go until they can even consider changing the world. Years five and six will be much more interesting. The way I see it, these people are not foregoing education. They are just receiving it through other, non-traditional, avenues. That does not mean they can learn faster than anyone else though, so it is no surprise that they are going to take a few years to learn before they can start seeing accomplishments.
jeffdavis 14y ago
"We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there." You could say the same thing in reverse: it's just opting out of the pro-college dogma. Colleges have a huge amount of overhead like land, buildings, bureaucracy and enticements like fancy campuses and perks; much of it for students studying soft subjects with a lot of grade inflation. It's all paid for by government incentives and a trillion dollars in student loan debt. A lot of studies say that college degrees are still worth the cost, but I'd like to know if such studies control for the self-selection of college students. Is it that college puts people on the path toward success or that people on the path toward success tend to choose college? Also, do the various majors independently justify their costs, or are political science majors lumped with engineers? Today, I'd still probably choose college if I were 18 again (in engineering or one of a few other subjects). But ten years from now, I hope there are better alternatives available (which will make the colleges better, too), and college will just be one option that can survive without government subsidy. Such a change will also improve the liberal arts and soft subjects at colleges. Right now, such subjects are diluted by a lot of people that just don't know what to do, and think that those subjects are easier and leave more time to party. When those people are no longer encouraged by easy money and enticed by fancy campuses, or fear the stigma of not going to college, then the softer subject classes will be left with serious thinkers.
forensic 14y ago
Good autodidacts learn from the best, and the best are always academics.

randomdata 14y ago

It has only been one year. College graduate-bound students still have at least three more years to go until they can even consider changing the world. Years five and six will be much more interesting. The way I see it, these people are not foregoing education. They are just receiving it through other, non-traditional, avenues. That does not mean they can learn faster than anyone else though, so it is no surprise that they are going to take a few years to learn before they can start seeing accomplishments.

jeffdavis 14y ago

"We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there." You could say the same thing in reverse: it's just opting out of the pro-college dogma. Colleges have a huge amount of overhead like land, buildings, bureaucracy and enticements like fancy campuses and perks; much of it for students studying soft subjects with a lot of grade inflation. It's all paid for by government incentives and a trillion dollars in student loan debt. A lot of studies say that college degrees are still worth the cost, but I'd like to know if such studies control for the self-selection of college students. Is it that college puts people on the path toward success or that people on the path toward success tend to choose college? Also, do the various majors independently justify their costs, or are political science majors lumped with engineers? Today, I'd still probably choose college if I were 18 again (in engineering or one of a few other subjects). But ten years from now, I hope there are better alternatives available (which will make the colleges better, too), and college will just be one option that can survive without government subsidy. Such a change will also improve the liberal arts and soft subjects at colleges. Right now, such subjects are diluted by a lot of people that just don't know what to do, and think that those subjects are easier and leave more time to party. When those people are no longer encouraged by easy money and enticed by fancy campuses, or fear the stigma of not going to college, then the softer subject classes will be left with serious thinkers.

forensic 14y ago

Good autodidacts learn from the best, and the best are always academics.