6 ms·
> When I asked him why he had gone through so much trouble to get to an Ivy League university only to off-load all of the learning to a robot, he said, “It’s th
by lapcat 1y ago
> When I asked him why he had gone through so much trouble to get to an Ivy League university only to off-load all of the learning to a robot, he said, “It’s the best place to meet your co-founder and your wife.”
On the one hand, this guy is not wrong, from a personal perspective. On the other hand, guys like this are a total waste of time and space in the classroom.
Schools have always faced a fundamental internal conflict, i.e., dueling purposes, and recent developments such as the rise of ChatGPT and the rise of student loan debt may have finally brought the entire educational system to a crisis.
We like to think of education as the primary purpose of the educational system, hence the name. And education is indeed essential, not just for job training but also for the enrichment of human life, as well as the preservation of democracy and freedom. Arguably, the latter are more important. Yet we also rely on the educational system for social and economic sorting. It's a ranking system that has a monumental effect on the future prospects of students. And as the above quotation notes, it's a club, an exclusive club, where the lucky few get to meet the right people and enter into important social circles.
At the university level, things become even more muddled, because professors and scientists are performing important research that may have little or nothing to do with the education of undergraduate students. A lot of this research is important for society, and for industry, but it still comes into conflict with the other purposes of the university.
So how do we resolve the inherent conflict? Is there a way to split the educational system into separate entities that are truer to their individual purposes? Can we make a place for the social ladder climber that's separate from a place where real learning happens, where nobody is tempted to cheat because there's nothing to be gained from cheating? It should also be noted that not everyone is ready to learn. Our current educational system is designed like an assembly line, based on age and social promotion. Everyone of the same age is expected to follow the same track. I personally wasn't ready to study and learn when I was a teenager; it took several more years for me to mature emotionally, develop ambition and discipline. It's difficult to force-feed students: “Most assignments in college are not relevant,” he told me. “They’re hackable by AI, and I just had no interest in doing them.” Perhaps, though, there might be more motivation to learn if learning was not tied to future economic and social prospects. If students view school as merely a tool to achieve certain benefits, then of course they'll view anything else in school as a waste of time.
In a sense, our educational system finds failure to educate to be acceptable, even desirable, because failure fulfills the alternative purpose of social ranking.
- pjc50 1y ago> Can we make a place for the social ladder climber that's separate from a place where real learning happens, where nobody is tempted to cheat because there's nothing to be gained from cheating? I don't think so. Let me suggest a set of hypotheses: - the social ladder always exists; it's basically fundamental to human existence, especially when trying to do anything (see tyranny of structurelessness) - people are always trying to climb the hierarchy - the examocracy(+) was introduced by ancient Chinese and/or Prussia in an attempt to bring actual competence into the social hierachy, in large part to help the leader fight wars - if there isn't a "fair" route to the top, competent outsiders will resort to unfair ones, which can be remarkably lethal and destructive - the university provides its own small academic and intellectual hierarchy, but this exists in dialogue with the needs of a wider society and its demand for non-academic intellectually specialized work. Whether that's priests, lawyers, doctors, army officers, weapons designers, civil servants, or programmers - this comes down to: does the wider society demand human competence in intellectual operations still, or does ALL of that get AI-automated away? Do we get "humans, but with a smarter Clippy" or do we get "AI runs the world for billionaires and everyone else is surplus peasantry". - the secret third, worse, case is that AI destroys the concept of competence and things stop working on a large scale. (+) I do not want to have a huge fight over the word "meritocracy"
- lapcat 1y agoIt's unclear why you think the educational system needs to be part of the social ladder. I'm imagining for example that all citizens are required to receive an education, and demonstrate the same level of mastery in the subjects taught as everyone else, without grades or rankings. You might call it "pass-fail", but I resist that idea, because I don't consider failure to be an option, except in rare cases of learning disability.
- pjc50 1y ago> why you think the educational system needs to be part of the social ladder. Depends if you want the people running the country to be competent or not.