3 ms·

> Mostly developed to the same extent This is mostly a software engineering forum, but no... most actually important industries and scientific work, unlike bui

> Mostly developed to the same extent This is mostly a software engineering forum, but no... most actually important industries and scientific work, unlike building webapps or video games, work the same way as software. John Doe straight of high school can go and make a photo sharing app with his laptop, but he is not going to be getting the same type of experience with non-trival research in his garage as at a research university. To actually get to the point where people had laptops required years of largely academic research and creating markets which were almost entirely academic. Just like with vaccination, people forget the time when a young person (who wasn't named Bill Gates) could get experience on an actual computer was at a university.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
You quoted me out of context. The full paragraph is below. I was specifically: - addressing OP's point about students and talent development - talking about 'most students' It talks about talent pipeline without acknowledging that, for most students, colleges are mostly a gatekeeper (signaling device) and that, if the university system did not exist, the talents would still exist and mostly be developed to the same extent. Today, it's rational for students to go to college because of the job application arms race. If universities did not exist, we could have a less costly (time and money) signaling mechanism, and talent development for the majority of students would be largely the same. (Folks claim that college teaches 'critical thinking' but there's weak, if any, empirical support for that claim.)
- LarsDu88 1y ago
  I think this is an OK argument, but it assumes that in a magical world where universities ceased to exist, the alternative would actually be less costly. Remember, universities have fulfilled different societal roles over time. In the US they started off as Bible college, some of them gradually turned into quasi trade schools at the turn of the industrial revolution, and our idea of elite research universities really only reached full stride from Vannevar Bush's influence during WW2. Along they way, some of them developed lucrative sports programs completely unrelated to studying the Bible or building nuclear weapons. I would argue that if universities did not exist, they would be replaced by institutions that mostly do the same thing. The key question is whether the replacement institutions would cost as much. If there are the same sort of federal subsidies and incentives, the replacement institutions that replace the key signaling aspects of the modern research university would cost the same or more because the high cost is driven by the perceived market value of a degree and government loan programs. For the majority of non-elite students, the cost to get into such institutions for training, credentialling, exposure will be high. The real problem here is not universities but the fact that all majors are treated equally regardless of the expected economic outcome. An English major pays the same as an Engineering major despite drastically different ROI. This is an issue regardless of whether engineering and english departments are in the same institution or partitioned into separate non-university research institutions.

rahimnathwani 1y ago

You quoted me out of context. The full paragraph is below. I was specifically: - addressing OP's point about students and talent development - talking about 'most students' It talks about talent pipeline without acknowledging that, for most students, colleges are mostly a gatekeeper (signaling device) and that, if the university system did not exist, the talents would still exist and mostly be developed to the same extent. Today, it's rational for students to go to college because of the job application arms race. If universities did not exist, we could have a less costly (time and money) signaling mechanism, and talent development for the majority of students would be largely the same. (Folks claim that college teaches 'critical thinking' but there's weak, if any, empirical support for that claim.)

LarsDu88 1y ago
I think this is an OK argument, but it assumes that in a magical world where universities ceased to exist, the alternative would actually be less costly. Remember, universities have fulfilled different societal roles over time. In the US they started off as Bible college, some of them gradually turned into quasi trade schools at the turn of the industrial revolution, and our idea of elite research universities really only reached full stride from Vannevar Bush's influence during WW2. Along they way, some of them developed lucrative sports programs completely unrelated to studying the Bible or building nuclear weapons. I would argue that if universities did not exist, they would be replaced by institutions that mostly do the same thing. The key question is whether the replacement institutions would cost as much. If there are the same sort of federal subsidies and incentives, the replacement institutions that replace the key signaling aspects of the modern research university would cost the same or more because the high cost is driven by the perceived market value of a degree and government loan programs. For the majority of non-elite students, the cost to get into such institutions for training, credentialling, exposure will be high. The real problem here is not universities but the fact that all majors are treated equally regardless of the expected economic outcome. An English major pays the same as an Engineering major despite drastically different ROI. This is an issue regardless of whether engineering and english departments are in the same institution or partitioned into separate non-university research institutions.