6 ms·

> I'm there for the degree. If I wanted to learn and engage with material, I could save $60,000 I would argue that if it costs $60,000, both your education sys

by palata 2y ago

> I'm there for the degree. If I wanted to learn and engage with material, I could save $60,000 I would argue that if it costs $60,000, both your education system and the recruitment in those companies that require this degree are broken. It's not the case in all countries though. Not that it is your fault, just stating the obvious.

chongli 2y ago
It is broken. For every coveted job there are thousands of applicants. Employers will accept any signal that reliably predicts a modicum of intelligence, conscientiousness, and agreeability. University degrees cover all three. But that's just the job market. The other elephants in the room are inflation and the housing market. People who don't have top-notch jobs (that require degrees) can't afford to buy a house. They can hardly afford rent. Cities don't want to build more housing because that will undermine the equity growth of homeowners. We are a society of ladder-pullers.
- godelski 2y ago
  > We are a society of ladder-pullers. I don't disagree, but often we complain about people pulling up ladders and when faced with the same decision we follow suit. Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom"
  - lmm 2y ago
    We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals, and exhorting people to do so saps energy and distracts. The system interprets integrity as damage and routes around it.
    - godelski 2y ago
      > We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals That's wildly inaccurate. Your logic necessitates that "the system" is not composed of individuals. The problem itself was created through individual actions...
      - lmm 2y ago
        The problem was created by individuals deliberately acting collectively, not simply choosing one way or another in their routine individual capacities. The solution will require the same.
      - joha4270 2y ago
        The problem of individuals making optimal choices on an individual scale being sub-optimal on a society scale is so widespread we have a specific phrase to describe it: Tragedy of the commons I would love to live in a world where everyone was altruistic and made correct choices for the long term good of society, but I don't. And there are limits to how much I'm willing to act as if I do, when in practice it just means I'm giving away resources to people who are purely (thinkingly or unthinkingly) selfish.
        godelski 2y ago
        > The problem of individuals making optimal choices on an individual scale being sub-optimal on a society scale The problem is people think this is a remotely accurate statement. These things only work if you use very low order approximations. Like being the only person and time not existing. As soon as you build any accuracy your net benefit more aligns with society. The classic example of this is the marshmallow experiment. It's myopic. We do it all the time but frequency doesn't make an action intelligent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275 This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue. There's no finite resource we're all trying to draw upon in this case. The supply is generated by ourselves and it could be infinite if we chose to.
      - lucianbr 2y ago
        > Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom" To me it reads as if you're contradicting yourself. It can be plainly seen that almost nobody is willing to defect. So change is impossible, you claim. Also change is possible, you claim. Which is it? You think people will change their choices as a result of you writing this comment and "winning" the argument? I agree that people are responsible for the current situation, since their choices brought it about. That does not constitute a solution, though. One or a thousand individuals changing their choice by themselves will do nothing. For tens of millions to change some external factor is required. If it was not, then it would have already happened. You say no external factor is required, so why do you think it didn't happen already, and why would it happen in the future?
    - walleeee 2y ago
      This attitude willingly donates what agency you have to the people and things trying to take it from you. Lead by example. Mimicry is real, we all do it whether or not we are aware. Every node in the graph influences others. If you must exhort, it works better if you follow your own advice. Of course, be discerning as you do this, and don't expend your energy or goodwill where it will be wasted. Be like Gandalf. Any dogmatic system is fault-tolerant, in that it will "route around" some amount of internal dissent, but this does not make it impregnable. The ruts in our minds steer us just as much as those in the ground. But earth turns and so can we.
      - godelski 2y ago
        It's disheartening how many people do not want to hear this. But it's the only way we can get things done. It's the same thing that led to this system we all hate, a race to the bottom. I posted this a week back. I think you'll enjoy the article if you haven't read it yet. Don't give up, you're not alone and I think we're gaining momentum. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824534
        walleeee 2y ago
        Cheers. I saw that one and liked it. I do wish the title was "It's not just the incentives". Incentives are people and artifices. The latter deceptive or not. But the point being in feedback.
        godelski 2y ago
        I think the intention of the title was to fire people up a little. Let them cook and not get away with passing the buck. Ultimately the incentive structures are a product of our actions, and the author does make that clear. So in effect, it all comes down to us.
        walleeee 2y ago
        Yeah, indeed it does. Can't know what each ear needs to hear to come alive to that, I guess.
    - mark336 2y ago
      This is a problem with liberal thinking. Its brains over do the right thing.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >The other elephants in the room are inflation and the housing market. I'm not even sure if people are aware of inflation/housing as a completely solvable issue by the govt. I guess it's because people most people are clueless on how it is to be solved. >We are a society of ladder-pullers. It's by design, to serve the rulers. It's an assembly line of slaves who are given some freedoms and are put through various stages of school, university, work and retirement. When most people retire they are left with little to nothing.
mschuster91 2y ago
> I would argue that if it costs $60,000, both your education system and the recruitment in those companies that require this degree are broken. Meh, academic degrees don't come for free, someone has to pay for universities, staff and other expenses. In the US it's everyone for themselves by student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcies, in Europe it's the tax payers. The problem is, the ones profiting from the gatekeeping (aka employers) aren't the ones paying for it in either system. If employers had to pay, say, 10.000$ for each job listing that requires an academic degree without an actual valid reason, guess how fast that incentive would lead to employers not requiring academic degrees for paper-pusher bullshit jobs.
- bluGill 2y ago
  There is also nobody cares about low prices but you can brag about how exclusive you are with high prices. One univertity near me automatically gives everyone a 40% scholarship - which is to say they have inflated their sticker price.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  So like a payroll tax specific to jobs that require higher education?
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    No, only for jobs that claim to require higher education but do not. Basically, an "abuse tax" to reimburse the government (or the students) for having to spend money on something clearly not needed.
- necovek 2y ago
  In a sense, it still comes down to supply and demand — if applicants, upon graduating, all requested to be reimbursed for, say, 25% of their tuition up front and to the university they graduated from, we'd end up with reduced salaries compared to just distributing those 25% to the new employee over a number a years. But how do you get all students to agree with this in principle when someone is in more rush to start earning an income than others? However, employers would then look to only hire from universities that do good teaching, so maybe it's a win-win?
nradov 2y ago
Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? Employers have a surplus of applicants for entry-level technical positions. They need to filter the applicant pool down to those with some level of competence and discipline. Possession of a college degree is a reasonably accurate proxy for those attributes: lots of false negatives but good enough from the employer's perspective. Ideally maybe employers ought to rely on more targeted selection mechanisms. But this would be extremely expensive (and potentially legally risky due to equal opportunity laws) so most don't bother.
- palata 2y ago
  > Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? As I said, the only country I know where it is like that is the US.
  - shanusmagnus 2y ago
    Are you saying the US is the only country that has an excess of applicants for entry-level positions? Or the only one for which credentialism is the solution to this problem? If the second, how does the place you're from solve it?
    - palata 2y ago
      No, I am saying that the US is the only country I know where students pay 60k per year.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? For a true solution, the entire taxation and monetary system will have to overhauled. It's of course not going to happen. Transactions outside of the govt monetary system is effectively illegal or taxed so people are forced to participate by applying for jobs for their livelihood.
sethammons 2y ago
My tuition was $35k a year 25 years ago. Just checked, and now it is $60k a year. Before room and board. Broken? Saddling individuals with a quarter million in debt when they are just starting life is absolutely broken. That they must indenture to be a modern professional (and buy hope for at least a middle class landing) is broken. The notion that everything must return a (generally, near-term) accounting profit is on its face stupid.
- svachalek 2y ago
  $35k in 2000 is $65k now so that's actually decreased in real terms.
- vel0city 2y ago
  $35k/yr for tuition in 2000 was still an extremely expensive college. The school I went to in that decade was ~$10k/yr in tuition+fees and was the most expensive state school in my state at the time. Even today, that university is considered expensive for the state at ~$8,200/semester.

by palata 2y ago

chongli 2y ago

It is broken. For every coveted job there are thousands of applicants. Employers will accept any signal that reliably predicts a modicum of intelligence, conscientiousness, and agreeability. University degrees cover all three. But that's just the job market. The other elephants in the room are inflation and the housing market. People who don't have top-notch jobs (that require degrees) can't afford to buy a house. They can hardly afford rent. Cities don't want to build more housing because that will undermine the equity growth of homeowners. We are a society of ladder-pullers.

godelski 2y ago
> We are a society of ladder-pullers. I don't disagree, but often we complain about people pulling up ladders and when faced with the same decision we follow suit. Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom"
- lmm 2y ago
  We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals, and exhorting people to do so saps energy and distracts. The system interprets integrity as damage and routes around it.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals That's wildly inaccurate. Your logic necessitates that "the system" is not composed of individuals. The problem itself was created through individual actions...
    - lmm 2y ago
      The problem was created by individuals deliberately acting collectively, not simply choosing one way or another in their routine individual capacities. The solution will require the same.
    - joha4270 2y ago
      The problem of individuals making optimal choices on an individual scale being sub-optimal on a society scale is so widespread we have a specific phrase to describe it: Tragedy of the commons I would love to live in a world where everyone was altruistic and made correct choices for the long term good of society, but I don't. And there are limits to how much I'm willing to act as if I do, when in practice it just means I'm giving away resources to people who are purely (thinkingly or unthinkingly) selfish.
      - godelski 2y ago
        > The problem of individuals making optimal choices on an individual scale being sub-optimal on a society scale The problem is people think this is a remotely accurate statement. These things only work if you use very low order approximations. Like being the only person and time not existing. As soon as you build any accuracy your net benefit more aligns with society. The classic example of this is the marshmallow experiment. It's myopic. We do it all the time but frequency doesn't make an action intelligent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275 This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue. There's no finite resource we're all trying to draw upon in this case. The supply is generated by ourselves and it could be infinite if we chose to.
    - lucianbr 2y ago
      > Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom" To me it reads as if you're contradicting yourself. It can be plainly seen that almost nobody is willing to defect. So change is impossible, you claim. Also change is possible, you claim. Which is it? You think people will change their choices as a result of you writing this comment and "winning" the argument? I agree that people are responsible for the current situation, since their choices brought it about. That does not constitute a solution, though. One or a thousand individuals changing their choice by themselves will do nothing. For tens of millions to change some external factor is required. If it was not, then it would have already happened. You say no external factor is required, so why do you think it didn't happen already, and why would it happen in the future?
  - walleeee 2y ago
    This attitude willingly donates what agency you have to the people and things trying to take it from you. Lead by example. Mimicry is real, we all do it whether or not we are aware. Every node in the graph influences others. If you must exhort, it works better if you follow your own advice. Of course, be discerning as you do this, and don't expend your energy or goodwill where it will be wasted. Be like Gandalf. Any dogmatic system is fault-tolerant, in that it will "route around" some amount of internal dissent, but this does not make it impregnable. The ruts in our minds steer us just as much as those in the ground. But earth turns and so can we.
    - godelski 2y ago
      It's disheartening how many people do not want to hear this. But it's the only way we can get things done. It's the same thing that led to this system we all hate, a race to the bottom. I posted this a week back. I think you'll enjoy the article if you haven't read it yet. Don't give up, you're not alone and I think we're gaining momentum. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824534
      - walleeee 2y ago
        Cheers. I saw that one and liked it. I do wish the title was "It's not just the incentives". Incentives are people and artifices. The latter deceptive or not. But the point being in feedback.
        godelski 2y ago
        I think the intention of the title was to fire people up a little. Let them cook and not get away with passing the buck. Ultimately the incentive structures are a product of our actions, and the author does make that clear. So in effect, it all comes down to us.
        walleeee 2y ago
        Yeah, indeed it does. Can't know what each ear needs to hear to come alive to that, I guess.
  - mark336 2y ago
    This is a problem with liberal thinking. Its brains over do the right thing.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>The other elephants in the room are inflation and the housing market. I'm not even sure if people are aware of inflation/housing as a completely solvable issue by the govt. I guess it's because people most people are clueless on how it is to be solved. >We are a society of ladder-pullers. It's by design, to serve the rulers. It's an assembly line of slaves who are given some freedoms and are put through various stages of school, university, work and retirement. When most people retire they are left with little to nothing.

mschuster91 2y ago

> I would argue that if it costs $60,000, both your education system and the recruitment in those companies that require this degree are broken. Meh, academic degrees don't come for free, someone has to pay for universities, staff and other expenses. In the US it's everyone for themselves by student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcies, in Europe it's the tax payers. The problem is, the ones profiting from the gatekeeping (aka employers) aren't the ones paying for it in either system. If employers had to pay, say, 10.000$ for each job listing that requires an academic degree without an actual valid reason, guess how fast that incentive would lead to employers not requiring academic degrees for paper-pusher bullshit jobs.

bluGill 2y ago
There is also nobody cares about low prices but you can brag about how exclusive you are with high prices. One univertity near me automatically gives everyone a 40% scholarship - which is to say they have inflated their sticker price.
dullcrisp 2y ago
So like a payroll tax specific to jobs that require higher education?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  No, only for jobs that claim to require higher education but do not. Basically, an "abuse tax" to reimburse the government (or the students) for having to spend money on something clearly not needed.
necovek 2y ago
In a sense, it still comes down to supply and demand — if applicants, upon graduating, all requested to be reimbursed for, say, 25% of their tuition up front and to the university they graduated from, we'd end up with reduced salaries compared to just distributing those 25% to the new employee over a number a years. But how do you get all students to agree with this in principle when someone is in more rush to start earning an income than others? However, employers would then look to only hire from universities that do good teaching, so maybe it's a win-win?

nradov 2y ago

Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? Employers have a surplus of applicants for entry-level technical positions. They need to filter the applicant pool down to those with some level of competence and discipline. Possession of a college degree is a reasonably accurate proxy for those attributes: lots of false negatives but good enough from the employer's perspective. Ideally maybe employers ought to rely on more targeted selection mechanisms. But this would be extremely expensive (and potentially legally risky due to equal opportunity laws) so most don't bother.

palata 2y ago
> Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? As I said, the only country I know where it is like that is the US.
- shanusmagnus 2y ago
  Are you saying the US is the only country that has an excess of applicants for entry-level positions? Or the only one for which credentialism is the solution to this problem? If the second, how does the place you're from solve it?
  - palata 2y ago
    No, I am saying that the US is the only country I know where students pay 60k per year.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Sure, the system is broken but what's the alternative? For a true solution, the entire taxation and monetary system will have to overhauled. It's of course not going to happen. Transactions outside of the govt monetary system is effectively illegal or taxed so people are forced to participate by applying for jobs for their livelihood.

sethammons 2y ago

My tuition was $35k a year 25 years ago. Just checked, and now it is $60k a year. Before room and board. Broken? Saddling individuals with a quarter million in debt when they are just starting life is absolutely broken. That they must indenture to be a modern professional (and buy hope for at least a middle class landing) is broken. The notion that everything must return a (generally, near-term) accounting profit is on its face stupid.

svachalek 2y ago
$35k in 2000 is $65k now so that's actually decreased in real terms.
vel0city 2y ago
$35k/yr for tuition in 2000 was still an extremely expensive college. The school I went to in that decade was ~$10k/yr in tuition+fees and was the most expensive state school in my state at the time. Even today, that university is considered expensive for the state at ~$8,200/semester.