19 ms·

Universities should be more than toll gates

140 points by wdib 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pythonic_hell 1y ago
This is also true for universities in Europe and America.
- QQ00 1y ago
  this is literally everywhere.
  - gddgb 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Igrom 1y ago
    It's not "literally" everywhere, but sometimes students do enter college without the mentality of study as exploration of your own interests. Sometimes the university professors don't know how to foster it either.
    - QQ00 1y ago
      in my opinion it's still the dominant, that university is just a place to get a paper that say you studied for x years in x university in x subject. a certification. unless you are a passionate about the subject of study.
- general1465 1y ago
  For private universities in Europe it is true. For public (state owned) universities much less so. This is simply because public university does not look on student like on a customer who put some good money on the table to get the final paper. While private universities do. This is also a reason why in Europe when you have a diploma from private university, nobody really takes that seriously and looks at you like you would be showing him diploma from University of McDonalds.
  - StefanBatory 1y ago
    Yup - I'm Polish, and vast majority of people faced with a diploma from private university would think "You bought your degree because you were too dumb to get into public university." There are some good private ones; but most of them are degree mills.
  - badpun 1y ago
    > This is simply because public university does not look on student like on a customer who put some good money on the table to get the final paper. Even 10 years ago, this used to be the case in Poland. But now, with demographic decline (current generation of students significantly smaller than previous ones), universities are desperate to fill the seats. If they don't, they lose public funding, which means layoffs - and no one wants that (the university, as any institution, first and foremost serves its employees). One approach used is to attract foreigners (mostly students from Asia and, to lesser degree, Africa - the main draw is the EU visa), another one is to keep lowering expectations.
  - imtringued 1y ago
    Yes, German universities don't do entrance exams, there is also no grading on a curve to artificially weed out students. What they do instead is just simply have really difficult exams with a failure rate of 30% and higher for first semester students. The linear algebra exam I passed had a 50% failure rate and most passing students got something equivalent to a D in the American system.
    - macbr 1y ago
      To be fair: if you're doing a Masters degree the grade you end up getting on your Bachelors degree is pretty unimportant and Masters usually isn't graded that harshly. But yeah, we had exams with 70% failing.
phendrenad2 1y ago
I suspect a lot of people on HN have similar stories. College is always in conflict between rote memorization (easiest to grade, therefore cheaper) and actual understanding (best outcome, therefore increases college ranking).
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Also in admissions, between quality and quantity.
- parpfish 1y ago
  Rote memorization often gets a bad wrap. It shouldn’t be the sole purpose of a class, but sometimes you have to drill people to memorize a bunch of stuff so they’re able to deal with the higher level material. Imagine doing math if you never had somebody force you to learn multiplication tables. Or if you were doing medical programs but hadn’t been forced to learn the names of all the bones/organs.
hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
Well, if you actually want to learn, there is always the vast swaths of the Internet. Virtually everything here is free, and nobody will care until you do something impressive with your knowledge. As for universities, they will likely stay as signaling mechanisms until society finds a more efficient way to signal the things that universities do. This is a worldwide pattern that has emerged, and to the extent you see deviations from it it's usually situations like e.g. getting into Tokyo University is already so incredibly difficult that some employers will just accept your letter of admission itself as a sufficient signal of your value to the firm and hire you and let you skip the whole getting a degree thing. What does university graduation signal? Some combination of raw intelligence, conscientiousness, and ability to conform (not against the "I have beef with the standard model of physics" nonconformance, so much as the "I will not physically assault the professor for telling me I'm wrong in class" nonconformance). Admission to a selective university signals you had these traits even earlier and with greater strength than your peers. I'm going to underline something from your own article here, which is that you went to an excellent university and got near the top of your class despite hating it. It is an incredibly rare psychological profile in the wild to be able to war-of-attrition your way through so many elite classes, while having virtually zero interest in the material themselves. Any employer would be drooling at the mouth to hire you because you sound reliable even in a pinch. Alas they cannot tell you apart from the ultranerd who gets all As because she genuinely finds all knowledge presented to her endlessly fascinating - but she's probably a good hire too, for different reasons! But, almost by definition, you can't really signal that kind of ability if you only ever do things you want to do... And most of the things most people in the world want to do most of the time aren't very economically valuable from the doer's perspective. Everyone wants to eat, nobody wants to grow crops, etc.
- fruitworks 1y ago
  I agree. I would even go so far as to suggest there is far more information availiable on the internet than you can get in a degree. Mostly it's inside pirated textbooks and academic papers. I've been self-teaching cryptography since I graduated with an engineering degree, and it's amazing how woefully unequipped a degree program alone leaves you compared to the information that's just out there
- 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
keiferski 1y ago
Well, they used to be, but the modern industrial age needed institutions that could train workers - and universities fit the bill. I don’t think it’s possible to detach the credential aspect from universities without a parallel work-focused system existing, and even then, the prestige of universities will still mean that the wealthy and privileged will prefer universities, which means that that prestige will trickle down to everyone else. The only real solution IMO is to support institutions like St. John’s [1] and others that are explicitly not career-focused, and work on making similar institutions affordable and accessible. There’s no real reason why someone can’t start a student-operated (to keep costs down) university that focuses on the liberal arts, classics, mathematics, etc. that is affordable enough for the average person. I suspect the main problem is the lack of prestige and precariousness of the economy at large. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapolis/Santa_Fe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapoli...
- kazen44 1y ago
  I think this is also a specific difference between germanic education and english/us education. Does the US not have something like a fachhochschule? A institute where peoeple are trained for specific fields/jobs? This systems seems to exist in most european countries that i know of, and it is specifically focussed on education related to a specific field or career. (this is also is there for different levels of practicality) for instance, you have also have schools for things like construction workers, hairdressers, etc etc. University's are more seem as a very high level of education, but which does not train one for a specific job.
  - keiferski 1y ago
    There are schools like this, called various things like “technical schools” or “vocational schools.” But they tend to be looked down upon by the American middle class and higher; e.g., the average parent wants their kid to go to college, any college, over a vocational school. In other words, vocational schools are (unfortunately) associated with people that don’t do well in traditional school. From what I understand Germany is much less classist in this regard.
mettamage 1y ago
The annoying thing is that: when universities aren't toll gates and you actually learn something, then people don't believe you and you have "0 work experience". So often, I've had the experience with work that it just feels like a long elaborate lab and there really is not much of a difference. Whether I make Jupyter notebooks analyzing things in a computer lab or for colleagues, I still use the same skills. Whether I present in front of classmates or colleagues, same skill.
- whywhywhywhy 1y ago
  Nah it's completely different and experience in a workplace isn't really about proving what you're describing it's about knowing someone else trusted this person to be able to deliver in a professional context which is very different from what is considered delivering in an academic context. Also you have to keep in mind just how oversubscribed academic qualifications are now so you're more just placing yourself at the starting line and whats more important is what you did outside that institution.
  - mettamage 1y ago
    > it's about knowing someone else trusted this person to be able to deliver in a professional context which is very different from what is considered delivering in an academic context. How is it different? When you work in motivated groups at uni you split the work and rely on each other to do your part at a high quality. That’s also true for real work. Often enough you depend on certain things that your team mate does like finishing some part of a codebase while you worked on the theoretical underpinnings of an exploit and drafted that code. And now you can place your code into her code and rowhammer via JS works now. I just don’t see the difference. Oh, and my performance reviews are “we are really happy with your work”. I used to work as a SWE and now as a data analyst. It all feels like school to me. > Also you have to keep in mind just how oversubscribed academic qualifications are now so you're more just placing yourself at the starting line and whats more important is what you did outside that institution. I see that it’s oversubscribed.
Lyngbakr 1y ago
This was exactly like my experience, although mine was in the UK maybe 15 years earlier. I went to university and studied a particular subject so that I'd be employable and didn't enjoy what I was learning. (It's debatable whether I learnt much at all, though.) Like the author, many years later I also came across computer science and found it exciting and engrossing, but I have a slightly different take on that: > Absolute joy turned into anger, and anger into resentment, as I wondered how different my life might have been if I’d been taught subjects I actually cared about by professors who cared too. For me, I'm not sure that hypothetical alternative path was ever available. I really admire university students who are passionate about what they are learning, but I doubt that could've been me regardless of the subject (unless that subject was beer). I simply wasn't in the right headspace for that. Perhaps I needed to grind out a dull degree as it ultimately set me on a path to a time/place/subject that I really do enjoy. My interests now have been shaped by my journey and if you'd tried to teach me computer science at 18 I'm sure I would've hated that, too.
- dmos62 1y ago
  Same. I didn't know how to express my passions, and I didn't know that I didn't know. I've since been (re?)discovering this. I'm still working on it. I wish that we didn't talk down to kids to teach them, and instead approached them as equals, so that they wouldn't think that their passions and interests are below that of "grown ups". I recently learned that there's a term for that. Well sort of. It's "andragogy", which directly translates as education for adults, contrasting with "pedagogy" which is education for kids.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    Historically universities began as church schools, and (more or less) existed to educate priests in persuasion and nobility in leadership. You might think that's archaic, but that's still the primary purpose of the Ivy League in the US and the older equivalents around the world. The caste system works slightly differently, with priests (persuaders and marketers) replaced by economists, lawyers, and politicians, and nobility (doers with financial/political agency) by CEOs, financiers, and oligarchs. But it's recognisably the same idea. There are also supporting castes - the military, which has its own pipeline, and researchers/technicians, which are a weird hybrid caste. Some have limited political agency - which peaked around fifty years ago, and has been declining since - but most are just worker bees. The idea that universities are there for personal and cultural intellectual development is relatively recent, and much more tentative. There's still a lot of hostility to it because the primary purpose of the system is to maintain power differentials, not to erode them. The point being that the modern system is the vector sum of at least four different competing trends. There's political hierarchy, there's increasing financialisation of assets and processes (which actually conflicts with research and education), there's a need for workers who are accredited and educated enough, but not too educated and independent-minded, and there are the personal expectations of students, which depend on personality, talent, and acculturation. There isn't a stable solution for this problem. A recent trend is the availability of university-level teaching outside of universities. Textbook piracy, YouTube videos, and AI are all making it much easier for motivated people to learn - pretty much anything. I'm not convinced the formal system is sustainable. But it's clear current ideas about employment aren't sustainable either. So there's going to be a period of complete chaos, and - at best - some new system of semi-formal self-motivated open education is going to replace what we have now, perhaps with some kind of external testing and accreditation for specific skills and abilities.
artemonster 1y ago
I get my blood pressure to dangerous levels each time I stumble upon some high quality video lectures on youtube that explain some topics that were totally fucked in university, like PID control. 30 Minute video made by some amateur with cool animations explains basically 95% of everything you need to know vs old lifeless dork professor at "elite" university mumbling some nonsense and throwing walls of formulas with zero context, explanation or examples to help you understand. And in the end, your uni knowledge is at most 5% applicable in your work, you are still totally unprepared to enter the workforce and your first employer carries the burden to teach you.
- general1465 1y ago
  > throwing walls of formulas with zero context, explanation or examples This rings so true for me. Lot of teachers has this ass backwards style of teaching where they will come up with final formula like deus-ex machina. Why? To buy his text book where it is explained the way he wants it.
  - Almondsetat 1y ago
    Many formulas you use are the apex of months of research from the best minds of the last centuries. Every explanation is a deus-ex machina ordeal
    - general1465 1y ago
      You can summarize years or even centuries of research into a some digestible steps with length of less than a average lesson. Months of research does not mean that I need to read your whole research journal from start to finish to understand what research was about and what it reached. But that often expects that the person explaining a thing knows what they are talking about. I.e. people on high school does not like logarithms because they don't understand what it is for. I would bet that's because teachers themselves have absolutely 0 clue what in essence is a logarithm and why did it came to be. It was centuries of research, which you can summarize with one sentence - to make multiplication as simple as addition with lookup tables, because at 15th century they did not have calculators so multiplication was a hard laborious process. 135+265 is simple. 135*265 is difficult.
tiku 1y ago
I'm so glad I studied something other than programming, because I taught myself coding. College taught me important life lessons, especially one involving lawyers. I was already working as a freelance programmer and it was my second study (first one was sys admin on a practical level, because I was lazy at school because of gaming haha).
- baq 1y ago
  Coding is something you can’t learn at the university, you have to do it yourself. Uni classes just make you do it. Software engineering however is so vast there is very profound wisdom to be learned that you won’t discover much later in your career that would make your solutions so much better had you known them (dear undergrads, pay attention at systems 101, it’s worth it) and you also have an opportunity to learn subjects that would otherwise be very expensive to self-teach (eternally grateful for the fully equipped ethernet laboratory, it’s been almost two decades and the knowledge is still very relevant.)
  - eastbound 1y ago
    > Coding is something you can’t learn at the university, you have to do it yourself Yes, but I have a great divide with people who can’t draw UML on a whiteboard. Same length of studies, and yet it takes double the time to agree on what’s to build. They start, and after 3 code reviews I ask them “So where is this abstraction we’ve talked about?” and they say “It’s planned, I’ll do it at the end” and that’s when I know they’ve understood nothing. The first two employees caught me off guard with implementing the instances instead of the pattern, but for the third, I made it a requirement to start with this. Lack of abstraction and lack of UML language to express it, is definitely an impediment for a good developer. (Come the “but you said same length of studies”, so, for those guys: Imagine slaving away with a 5-year bootcamp with no sleep where, at the end, you think you know coding, but you can’t write a treeview where every node is of a different type and calls different implementations — it’s that simple, but in the end, it’s not done).
gddgb 1y ago
[dead]
aaplok 1y ago
The elephant in the room here is that perhaps the biggest difference between the two learning experiences that OP is describing is himself. He might just have discovered he is more mature at 30 than he was at 18...
- radialstub 1y ago
  There is a difference between learning about things that you find interesting at your own pace, and learning about things that interest other people with tight deadlines. Even if I enjoy learning, there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time.
  - Ozzie_osman 1y ago
    100%. Learning with autonomy and choice is much more enjoyable (and there is lots of research to show it's more effective).
  - RhysU 1y ago
    > ...there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time. How? Surely over 15 weeks each course taught you something about either the world or yourself. I just looked back over my undergrad transcript to double check my experience. I took something away from every single class. It wasn't always the material itself.
  - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    > Even if I enjoy learning, there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time. My university experience is somewhat different, and I believe whether this holds true or not depends a lot on the degree course: - In mathematics, there are barely any "filler courses". Basically all of them were interesting in their own right (even though because of your own interests, you will likely find some more exciting than others). - On the other hand, computer science more felt like every professor had their own opinion how the syllabus should be, and the hodgepodge that came out of it was adopted as syllabus (design by committee). Thus, there were quite a lot of interesting things to learn, but also "filler courses". Additionally, the syllabus did not feel like a "consistent whole" with a clear vision, but rather like lots of isolated courses that you had to pass.
danielfalbo 1y ago
I spent my high school afternoons on github.com/ossu/computer-science ; years later during my actual bachelor’s in computer science I just had a good time with the people around me. I’m grateful for the internet, life is good, universities are mostly for credential and the fun part is the best.
anonzzzies 1y ago
They used to be; I got my first master in that environment; academic rigor was the goal and purpose and my second one what it became after and is now; something to get a job with. The former was free and very hard the latter was loans, pressure but very easy. This happened in about 15 years in the Netherlands, between around 1990 and 2004; from excellent to shite as far as I am concerned. I was 'teaching' (assistant) and teaching for a bunch of those years and it really became quite shitty. My alma mater math & cs faculty is a joke now compared to the well deserved suffering of the 1990s rigor we had to endure. I wouldn't want to have lived the current fluff party. But sure, it's more practical as most we were taught was not practical and was not supposed to be; it was to teach us how to think.
tgv 1y ago
In contrast to many comments, I had a great time studying. Sure, the staff didn't have great teaching skills (classical prof with an unruly hairdo reading from the syllabus in a large hall), but after the first year, classes became smaller and teaching was --while not passionate-- certainly inspired in many cases. It was a period in which students could still pick an academic topic and write a (small) thesis for graduation, or do some internship and write a report about that. I had a supervisor who was into some of the newer stuff and gave me practically free reign with regular feedback. That was in 80s. I stuck around, changed faculty (AI, cogsci, neuro), and saw university change. It became very financially oriented. The number of students kept rising, norms kept dropping (2nd year student asking: what does this symbol √ mean?), students participating in real research became rarer and rarer, even PhDs shifted towards more and more teaching, and 20 years later, the most influential member of a university's board was the one doing real estate, and an academic career was based on the amount of funding obtained.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > It became very financially oriented. > The number of students kept rising, norms kept dropping All due to the student loans scam. https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-myth-of-college.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-myth... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-second-myth-of-college.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-second-myt... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/myth-3-collegedegree-earners-earn.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/myth-3-college... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-last-myth.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-last-myth....
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    Yes, these organizations adapt to taking government money. The ideal flow for universities: 1. Set tuition high 2. Advocate for student loan systems 3. Advocate for loan forgiveness In this way, universities can simply allocate government money to themselves. That's why "everyone must be educated" campaigns always argue for government loan forgiveness and full tuition coverage. Students are a device to acquire money from the government. No more.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
Makes me think of the "The purpose of a system is what it does" axiom. Universities were always about credentials whether professional or just to indicate social class. They can at the same time be places of learning, and many still are in some disciplines. The problem is that value of the credential is now worth more (to most people) than the value of the learning/knowledge. So universities adapted to the that model. Its more profitable and university presidents can now earn millions of dollars, further intrenching the problem as it now attracts exactly the kind of people into those positions who only care about money (and themselves). The true blame for this situation, (IMHO), are the employers across the economy who require applicants have 'university degrees' for jobs that in no way need those skillsets. Bullshit requirements then led to the demand for bullshit degrees which the universities changed to supply.
- Lu2025 1y ago
  > employers across the economy who require applicants have 'university degrees' Somebody from HR admitted to me that they often do it to simply trim the applicant pool to a more manageable size.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    This is true across literally millions of HR people across the whole country. Every one trying to make their job a little bit easier and thus creating an externality with the monstrous negative effect on the entire education system and years of people lives pursuing pointless degrees at great cost and debt that may take some lifetimes to pay off. Absolute madness.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      >> pursuing pointless degrees at great cost and debt Maybe if you require a liberal arts degree and immediately cut someone who's just "well read" but this is not my experience in technical and engineering focused roles.
  - mofosyne 1y ago
jokoon 1y ago
Bourdieu covers this I am able to write C++, I worked as a C++ dev, and in france I cannot get a job because I failed to validate the degree for personal reasons 15 years ago, so I don't have a degree, yet I have excellent senior C++ tests. French companies want degrees. Many recruiters say that it's a problem.
Joel_Mckay 1y ago
"The Controversial Exam Carl Sagan Gave His Students" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pc3IuVNuO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pc3IuVNuO0 Today, most students would fail this class. Note, the reading list is still relevant decades later. =3
- Viliam1234 1y ago
  Oh, youtube videos. Five minutes into the video, still just a looooooooooooooooong introduction, no example from the exam yet. That's what we get when we pay video producers per minute.
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    The YT summary text contains the reading list. These printed books are on indigo, abebooks, and amazon. Could always increase the playback speed to 1.25X for slow-talkers. lol =3
firesteelrain 1y ago
I think it is fair to say universities lean heavily on credentialing, but calling them only toll gates is too harsh. They also provide exposure to new fields, access to labs and mentors, and peer networks that are hard to replicate outside. That being said, the essay itself wanders and sometimes repeats points instead of driving the metaphor home. Tightening the structure would make the message stronger.
- PicassoCTs 1y ago
  [dead]
Dumblydorr 1y ago
They’re so much more, sad the comments aren’t seeing it. Making lifelong friends, learning independence, true freedom to explore topics and interests, higher challenge and opportunity for scholars. The toll gate function only makes sense from a Birds Eye view. If anything community colleges are more like toll gates. Pay a small fee to use a locally shared resource to then get your job.
- cbluth 1y ago
  You don't need universities to make lifelong friends or finding your learning independence
999900000999 1y ago
Everyone has a different path. I ran out of money, dropped out of college and self taught myself straight to 6 figures. Thank you Brendan Eich for JavaScript. Without it I'd probably still be making minimum wage, or working in a Java shop which might be worse. I finished my useless BA just to hang it on my wall. College should not be a job training program. It's valuable on its own merits, but the loop of you need a degree to get a job, and you need money to get a degree, so you can get a job to pay off your loans is stupid. If anything, and this is an American perspective, high school has failed. You should be able to read and write to a point of employability. If you want to go to college, it should be optional. Do it after work or part time. Outside of maybe medicine, law( which is debatable, you can technically just take the bar after a clerkship in a few states), and maybe a few other careers, college isn't needed. Why in God's name would you get a Masters in Art, the loan payments will make it impossible to survive. Just make the art! Draw. Write poems! Want to make games, make games! Knowledge is basically free, we're still adapting to this.
Planktonne 1y ago
> Absolute joy turned into anger, and anger into resentment, as I wondered how different my life might have been if I’d been taught subjects I actually cared about by professors who cared too. Then I caught myself, realizing I was being melodramatic about a decade-old grievance. This is incredibly self-indulgent. You were given opportunities you refused to engage with and are now continuing that pattern by blaming everyone else for your failures. University has no value beyond credentialism only if you don't put any in.
- thunky 1y ago
  > You were given opportunities you refused to engage with That's not what I read at all. They went to a good university and got good grades. They did what they were supposed to do. Then they later realized how little of value the actual education was. The university missed an opportunity to educate them, not the other way around. The student is not responsible for having a bad teacher.
  - fzwang 1y ago
    I think this is the lack of accountability that I find frustrating in the education system. If the student gets a bad experience, they are always blamed first and the role of the teacher/professor/university is never questioned.
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    They got good grades by panic cramming the night before exams. I've had lots of students like that (I've even been a student like that) and in every case one thing is true: they would have accomplished more with less effort if they'd focused on learning to understand rather than trying to treat everything as a memorisation task.
    - wdib 1y ago
      I think there's a misunderstanding on your behalf. My chief complaint was about the poor educational quality of universities in my country (Jordan). Forcing students to study 5 years instead of the standard 4, or teaching you mandatory subjects irrelevant to your major are not things where I could have accomplished more with less. Not going to university was not an option. It would have been the only way to guarantee work in my region.
dvdkon 1y ago
Seeing the comments here, I thought I'd quickly share my experience at Matfyz (Charles University in Prague), specifically the computer science programme: I applied for admission and was accepted based on having not-too-terrible grades from an optional high school exit test, but later all admission tests were cancelled due to COVID. The idea is to admit hundreds of applicants and keep those who pass the nontrivial first semester, which I much prefer to hard exams. Despite some missteps caused by COVID and just me being me, I really enjoyed my years of study and am now continuing in the masters programme. Some lectures were great, and most were at least decent. I learned to check who taught what class and ask around for feedback, and I'll shamelessly admit to choosing my specialisation based mostly on that feedback and personal experiences. I almost never felt that rote memorisation was being asked of me, or that it was the key to success. The vast majority of issues I had could be solved by understanding more, not just knowing more. Some examiners even allowed small cheatsheets (and plenty of people still didn't pass, so no free exams). I know that not all university students in the Czech Republic have had such a good experience. I've heard about plenty of problems with stubborn teachers or unfriendly bureaucracy, but on the whole I'd say it's about more than the degree.
orwin 1y ago
I know someone who started uni at 24, after 7 year of working as line cook then chef. She seems to have the opposite experience that you have. She has had a lot of support from the professors in her first year, and only wanted to reach bachelor. Then the seocnd year came, she started to really understand biology, and changed her goals from nutrition to pharmaco/biochemistry, changing her courses with the help of the admin. Then in Master 1, she once again pivoted towards genetics (therapeutic engineering to be exact), and it seems her M2 will push her toward a doctorate in genetics and anthropology, which is yet another pivot. For myself uni wasn't a success, and maybe we whould require children to work before getting to uni if they don't know what they wat to do yet, but at least for some, Uni is great and function exactly as it should.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > maybe we whould require children to work before getting to uni if they don't know what they wat to do yet You can easily get lots of information about various jobs using some magic technology called the "world wide web", so there is basically no need to work before university to get an informed opinion. If you are incapable of doing this, you likely simply don't "belong" into a university. Looking back at my life, the problem is rather that the only kind of internships from which you really "profit" because they extend your perspective, are basically "unreachable" if you don't have parents or friends who are insanely well-connected in upper circles. Also, if you worked in some "practical" area before going to a university, you will in my opinion become a much more misanthropic and arrogant person because you have seen how "stupid" the people were at that job. The university bubble helps you to avoid a lot of contact to "ordinary" people, and instead puts you into an environment where most people around you are much smarter, and you have to "fight hard for survival" (passing a class; passing a class with a decent mark; ...). Because this experience is very humbling (intendedly so), this makes you a much a much more humble person in your defining years.
  - parpfish 1y ago
    There’s a vast gulf between “reading about a job online” and “doing a job”. Of course college bound kids know that jobs exist, but they don’t know what it’s like to do them for any extended amount of time. And I’m guessing that one of the main reasons that they don’t know what it’s like is that their parents and every other adult guiding them has been telling them, implicitly or explicitly, “you’re a college bound kid, jobs like this are beneath you. Just focus on school”
dxs 1y ago
There is a good essay with a similar theme under the title of "The Nearly-Free University" at https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-nearly-free-university.html https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-nearly-fre... As someone with two degrees (B.A. English, followed after I caught on a bit, by a B.S. in physics and computer science with minors in math and chemistry), I can say that I would not take that route again. Mostly a waste. "What you can accomplish in the real world will rapidly become more valuable than a credential such as a conventional college degree. The credentialing gatekeepers are protecting an 'asset'--the college diploma--that is largely a phantom asset for the vast majority of students." I wish.
constantcrying 1y ago
From my experience at a German university, it was very clear that every student with a desire to learn would learn relevant skills and have no trouble passing any exam. The exams never were easy and studying was required,but if you understood the subject you would definitely pass. The experience the author describes seems totally disconnected what I have ever experienced in university. The author believes (which I think is unlikely) that the university had nothing to teach to him, in my experience this always was the fault of the student. Often blaming "esoteric" and "irrelevant" subjects such as linear algebra for their lack of success, while not understanding that it is a vital course for any engineer.
- yobbo 1y ago
  The poster was achieved success in all metrics he was exposed to.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    Did you read the article? The author laments that he did not learn anything relevant to him during his degree.
    - yobbo 1y ago
      He graduated with "some of the highest grades" in his class.
      - constantcrying 1y ago
        How is that at all relevant to what I am saying. The author explicitly said that it wasn't.
        yobbo 1y ago
        > Often blaming "esoteric" and "irrelevant" subjects such as linear algebra for their lack of success, while not understanding that it is a vital course for any engineer. The author was successful in his particular environment. It was only much later he understood that the content of his education wasn't valuable in itself. He is not blaming linear algebra, rather complaining that he was graded on memorisation rather than understanding.
arn3n 1y ago
I am always astonished by the range of people who claim their college degree was useless, citing rote memorization and bad classes. I had an entirely different experience and so did most people I know. University gave me the opportunity to talk to world-class researchers during office hours, to discuss ideas with my peers and have them either validated or critiqued by experts. Sure, all the information is available online (which is a miracle into itself) but without frequent contact with professors and mentors I wouldn’t have even known where to look or what existed in the field. University, for me, was a place where I was apprenticing full-time under highly experienced people, surrounded by people my age who also were doing the same. Years of self-teaching didn’t get me anywhere close to what a few semesters of expert mentorship got me. I never felt I had to memorize anything: exams consisted of system design or long programming projects or optimization challenges. I loved it, and I’m not sure if people went to different universities or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.
- eitally 1y ago
  > or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. It's this. Most undergraduate students do not go to office hours, try to get to know their instructors, ask follow-up questions, pursue independent research, or do anything approaching "apprenticeship". Most American students matriculate into college/uni not even having ingrained behaviors that make any of these things obvious or approachable, so yes, it's understandable why many would consider higher ed the same as secondary ed: rote memorization and "bad" classes.
  - jagged-chisel 1y ago
    > … Most undergraduate students do not go to office hours, try to get to know their instructors, ask follow-up questions This was actively discouraged by the instructors in the school I attended. Not by policy, but by behavior - passive-aggressively belittling students for not “getting” the subject matter, showing a complete lack of interest in reciprocating any amount of getting to know the instructor. > … ask follow-up questions, pursue independent research, or do anything approaching "apprenticeship". Most American students matriculate into college/uni not even having ingrained behaviors that make any of these things obvious or approachable … A failure of secondary education and students’ families.
bvan 1y ago
University is what >you< make of it. If you don’t like it, you have the choice to not go.
silexia 1y ago
The university system is a titanic waste of resources. Let's switch to a trusted testing system. Basically, have a thorough knowledge and skill test for any career (doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc) that anyone can pay to take and pass.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
QuiEgo 1y ago
Everyone learns differently. Lectures were all over the place for me - some useful, some awful. Professors really vary a lot in skill here. Same with tests - some helped me learn, some were rote memorization. Labs were incredibly, incredibly useful. 4 years of practice doing coding problems made me a way better programmer. I feel I got value out of the degree, even if there were some silly games to play.

140 points by wdib 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

pythonic_hell 1y ago

This is also true for universities in Europe and America.

QQ00 1y ago
this is literally everywhere.
- gddgb 1y ago
  [dead]
- Igrom 1y ago
  It's not "literally" everywhere, but sometimes students do enter college without the mentality of study as exploration of your own interests. Sometimes the university professors don't know how to foster it either.
  - QQ00 1y ago
    in my opinion it's still the dominant, that university is just a place to get a paper that say you studied for x years in x university in x subject. a certification. unless you are a passionate about the subject of study.
general1465 1y ago
For private universities in Europe it is true. For public (state owned) universities much less so. This is simply because public university does not look on student like on a customer who put some good money on the table to get the final paper. While private universities do. This is also a reason why in Europe when you have a diploma from private university, nobody really takes that seriously and looks at you like you would be showing him diploma from University of McDonalds.
- StefanBatory 1y ago
  Yup - I'm Polish, and vast majority of people faced with a diploma from private university would think "You bought your degree because you were too dumb to get into public university." There are some good private ones; but most of them are degree mills.
- badpun 1y ago
  > This is simply because public university does not look on student like on a customer who put some good money on the table to get the final paper. Even 10 years ago, this used to be the case in Poland. But now, with demographic decline (current generation of students significantly smaller than previous ones), universities are desperate to fill the seats. If they don't, they lose public funding, which means layoffs - and no one wants that (the university, as any institution, first and foremost serves its employees). One approach used is to attract foreigners (mostly students from Asia and, to lesser degree, Africa - the main draw is the EU visa), another one is to keep lowering expectations.
- imtringued 1y ago
  Yes, German universities don't do entrance exams, there is also no grading on a curve to artificially weed out students. What they do instead is just simply have really difficult exams with a failure rate of 30% and higher for first semester students. The linear algebra exam I passed had a 50% failure rate and most passing students got something equivalent to a D in the American system.
  - macbr 1y ago
    To be fair: if you're doing a Masters degree the grade you end up getting on your Bachelors degree is pretty unimportant and Masters usually isn't graded that harshly. But yeah, we had exams with 70% failing.

phendrenad2 1y ago

I suspect a lot of people on HN have similar stories. College is always in conflict between rote memorization (easiest to grade, therefore cheaper) and actual understanding (best outcome, therefore increases college ranking).

HPsquared 1y ago
Also in admissions, between quality and quantity.
parpfish 1y ago
Rote memorization often gets a bad wrap. It shouldn’t be the sole purpose of a class, but sometimes you have to drill people to memorize a bunch of stuff so they’re able to deal with the higher level material. Imagine doing math if you never had somebody force you to learn multiplication tables. Or if you were doing medical programs but hadn’t been forced to learn the names of all the bones/organs.

hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago

Well, if you actually want to learn, there is always the vast swaths of the Internet. Virtually everything here is free, and nobody will care until you do something impressive with your knowledge. As for universities, they will likely stay as signaling mechanisms until society finds a more efficient way to signal the things that universities do. This is a worldwide pattern that has emerged, and to the extent you see deviations from it it's usually situations like e.g. getting into Tokyo University is already so incredibly difficult that some employers will just accept your letter of admission itself as a sufficient signal of your value to the firm and hire you and let you skip the whole getting a degree thing. What does university graduation signal? Some combination of raw intelligence, conscientiousness, and ability to conform (not against the "I have beef with the standard model of physics" nonconformance, so much as the "I will not physically assault the professor for telling me I'm wrong in class" nonconformance). Admission to a selective university signals you had these traits even earlier and with greater strength than your peers. I'm going to underline something from your own article here, which is that you went to an excellent university and got near the top of your class despite hating it. It is an incredibly rare psychological profile in the wild to be able to war-of-attrition your way through so many elite classes, while having virtually zero interest in the material themselves. Any employer would be drooling at the mouth to hire you because you sound reliable even in a pinch. Alas they cannot tell you apart from the ultranerd who gets all As because she genuinely finds all knowledge presented to her endlessly fascinating - but she's probably a good hire too, for different reasons! But, almost by definition, you can't really signal that kind of ability if you only ever do things you want to do... And most of the things most people in the world want to do most of the time aren't very economically valuable from the doer's perspective. Everyone wants to eat, nobody wants to grow crops, etc.

fruitworks 1y ago
I agree. I would even go so far as to suggest there is far more information availiable on the internet than you can get in a degree. Mostly it's inside pirated textbooks and academic papers. I've been self-teaching cryptography since I graduated with an engineering degree, and it's amazing how woefully unequipped a degree program alone leaves you compared to the information that's just out there
1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

keiferski 1y ago

Well, they used to be, but the modern industrial age needed institutions that could train workers - and universities fit the bill. I don’t think it’s possible to detach the credential aspect from universities without a parallel work-focused system existing, and even then, the prestige of universities will still mean that the wealthy and privileged will prefer universities, which means that that prestige will trickle down to everyone else. The only real solution IMO is to support institutions like St. John’s [1] and others that are explicitly not career-focused, and work on making similar institutions affordable and accessible. There’s no real reason why someone can’t start a student-operated (to keep costs down) university that focuses on the liberal arts, classics, mathematics, etc. that is affordable enough for the average person. I suspect the main problem is the lack of prestige and precariousness of the economy at large. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapolis/Santa_Fe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapoli...

kazen44 1y ago
I think this is also a specific difference between germanic education and english/us education. Does the US not have something like a fachhochschule? A institute where peoeple are trained for specific fields/jobs? This systems seems to exist in most european countries that i know of, and it is specifically focussed on education related to a specific field or career. (this is also is there for different levels of practicality) for instance, you have also have schools for things like construction workers, hairdressers, etc etc. University's are more seem as a very high level of education, but which does not train one for a specific job.
- keiferski 1y ago
  There are schools like this, called various things like “technical schools” or “vocational schools.” But they tend to be looked down upon by the American middle class and higher; e.g., the average parent wants their kid to go to college, any college, over a vocational school. In other words, vocational schools are (unfortunately) associated with people that don’t do well in traditional school. From what I understand Germany is much less classist in this regard.

mettamage 1y ago

The annoying thing is that: when universities aren't toll gates and you actually learn something, then people don't believe you and you have "0 work experience". So often, I've had the experience with work that it just feels like a long elaborate lab and there really is not much of a difference. Whether I make Jupyter notebooks analyzing things in a computer lab or for colleagues, I still use the same skills. Whether I present in front of classmates or colleagues, same skill.

whywhywhywhy 1y ago
Nah it's completely different and experience in a workplace isn't really about proving what you're describing it's about knowing someone else trusted this person to be able to deliver in a professional context which is very different from what is considered delivering in an academic context. Also you have to keep in mind just how oversubscribed academic qualifications are now so you're more just placing yourself at the starting line and whats more important is what you did outside that institution.
- mettamage 1y ago
  > it's about knowing someone else trusted this person to be able to deliver in a professional context which is very different from what is considered delivering in an academic context. How is it different? When you work in motivated groups at uni you split the work and rely on each other to do your part at a high quality. That’s also true for real work. Often enough you depend on certain things that your team mate does like finishing some part of a codebase while you worked on the theoretical underpinnings of an exploit and drafted that code. And now you can place your code into her code and rowhammer via JS works now. I just don’t see the difference. Oh, and my performance reviews are “we are really happy with your work”. I used to work as a SWE and now as a data analyst. It all feels like school to me. > Also you have to keep in mind just how oversubscribed academic qualifications are now so you're more just placing yourself at the starting line and whats more important is what you did outside that institution. I see that it’s oversubscribed.

Lyngbakr 1y ago

This was exactly like my experience, although mine was in the UK maybe 15 years earlier. I went to university and studied a particular subject so that I'd be employable and didn't enjoy what I was learning. (It's debatable whether I learnt much at all, though.) Like the author, many years later I also came across computer science and found it exciting and engrossing, but I have a slightly different take on that: > Absolute joy turned into anger, and anger into resentment, as I wondered how different my life might have been if I’d been taught subjects I actually cared about by professors who cared too. For me, I'm not sure that hypothetical alternative path was ever available. I really admire university students who are passionate about what they are learning, but I doubt that could've been me regardless of the subject (unless that subject was beer). I simply wasn't in the right headspace for that. Perhaps I needed to grind out a dull degree as it ultimately set me on a path to a time/place/subject that I really do enjoy. My interests now have been shaped by my journey and if you'd tried to teach me computer science at 18 I'm sure I would've hated that, too.

dmos62 1y ago
Same. I didn't know how to express my passions, and I didn't know that I didn't know. I've since been (re?)discovering this. I'm still working on it. I wish that we didn't talk down to kids to teach them, and instead approached them as equals, so that they wouldn't think that their passions and interests are below that of "grown ups". I recently learned that there's a term for that. Well sort of. It's "andragogy", which directly translates as education for adults, contrasting with "pedagogy" which is education for kids.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Historically universities began as church schools, and (more or less) existed to educate priests in persuasion and nobility in leadership. You might think that's archaic, but that's still the primary purpose of the Ivy League in the US and the older equivalents around the world. The caste system works slightly differently, with priests (persuaders and marketers) replaced by economists, lawyers, and politicians, and nobility (doers with financial/political agency) by CEOs, financiers, and oligarchs. But it's recognisably the same idea. There are also supporting castes - the military, which has its own pipeline, and researchers/technicians, which are a weird hybrid caste. Some have limited political agency - which peaked around fifty years ago, and has been declining since - but most are just worker bees. The idea that universities are there for personal and cultural intellectual development is relatively recent, and much more tentative. There's still a lot of hostility to it because the primary purpose of the system is to maintain power differentials, not to erode them. The point being that the modern system is the vector sum of at least four different competing trends. There's political hierarchy, there's increasing financialisation of assets and processes (which actually conflicts with research and education), there's a need for workers who are accredited and educated enough, but not too educated and independent-minded, and there are the personal expectations of students, which depend on personality, talent, and acculturation. There isn't a stable solution for this problem. A recent trend is the availability of university-level teaching outside of universities. Textbook piracy, YouTube videos, and AI are all making it much easier for motivated people to learn - pretty much anything. I'm not convinced the formal system is sustainable. But it's clear current ideas about employment aren't sustainable either. So there's going to be a period of complete chaos, and - at best - some new system of semi-formal self-motivated open education is going to replace what we have now, perhaps with some kind of external testing and accreditation for specific skills and abilities.

artemonster 1y ago

I get my blood pressure to dangerous levels each time I stumble upon some high quality video lectures on youtube that explain some topics that were totally fucked in university, like PID control. 30 Minute video made by some amateur with cool animations explains basically 95% of everything you need to know vs old lifeless dork professor at "elite" university mumbling some nonsense and throwing walls of formulas with zero context, explanation or examples to help you understand. And in the end, your uni knowledge is at most 5% applicable in your work, you are still totally unprepared to enter the workforce and your first employer carries the burden to teach you.

general1465 1y ago
> throwing walls of formulas with zero context, explanation or examples This rings so true for me. Lot of teachers has this ass backwards style of teaching where they will come up with final formula like deus-ex machina. Why? To buy his text book where it is explained the way he wants it.
- Almondsetat 1y ago
  Many formulas you use are the apex of months of research from the best minds of the last centuries. Every explanation is a deus-ex machina ordeal
  - general1465 1y ago
    You can summarize years or even centuries of research into a some digestible steps with length of less than a average lesson. Months of research does not mean that I need to read your whole research journal from start to finish to understand what research was about and what it reached. But that often expects that the person explaining a thing knows what they are talking about. I.e. people on high school does not like logarithms because they don't understand what it is for. I would bet that's because teachers themselves have absolutely 0 clue what in essence is a logarithm and why did it came to be. It was centuries of research, which you can summarize with one sentence - to make multiplication as simple as addition with lookup tables, because at 15th century they did not have calculators so multiplication was a hard laborious process. 135+265 is simple. 135*265 is difficult.

tiku 1y ago

I'm so glad I studied something other than programming, because I taught myself coding. College taught me important life lessons, especially one involving lawyers. I was already working as a freelance programmer and it was my second study (first one was sys admin on a practical level, because I was lazy at school because of gaming haha).

baq 1y ago
Coding is something you can’t learn at the university, you have to do it yourself. Uni classes just make you do it. Software engineering however is so vast there is very profound wisdom to be learned that you won’t discover much later in your career that would make your solutions so much better had you known them (dear undergrads, pay attention at systems 101, it’s worth it) and you also have an opportunity to learn subjects that would otherwise be very expensive to self-teach (eternally grateful for the fully equipped ethernet laboratory, it’s been almost two decades and the knowledge is still very relevant.)
- eastbound 1y ago
  > Coding is something you can’t learn at the university, you have to do it yourself Yes, but I have a great divide with people who can’t draw UML on a whiteboard. Same length of studies, and yet it takes double the time to agree on what’s to build. They start, and after 3 code reviews I ask them “So where is this abstraction we’ve talked about?” and they say “It’s planned, I’ll do it at the end” and that’s when I know they’ve understood nothing. The first two employees caught me off guard with implementing the instances instead of the pattern, but for the third, I made it a requirement to start with this. Lack of abstraction and lack of UML language to express it, is definitely an impediment for a good developer. (Come the “but you said same length of studies”, so, for those guys: Imagine slaving away with a 5-year bootcamp with no sleep where, at the end, you think you know coding, but you can’t write a treeview where every node is of a different type and calls different implementations — it’s that simple, but in the end, it’s not done).

gddgb 1y ago

[dead]

aaplok 1y ago

The elephant in the room here is that perhaps the biggest difference between the two learning experiences that OP is describing is himself. He might just have discovered he is more mature at 30 than he was at 18...

radialstub 1y ago
There is a difference between learning about things that you find interesting at your own pace, and learning about things that interest other people with tight deadlines. Even if I enjoy learning, there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time.
- Ozzie_osman 1y ago
  100%. Learning with autonomy and choice is much more enjoyable (and there is lots of research to show it's more effective).
- RhysU 1y ago
  > ...there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time. How? Surely over 15 weeks each course taught you something about either the world or yourself. I just looked back over my undergrad transcript to double check my experience. I took something away from every single class. It wasn't always the material itself.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > Even if I enjoy learning, there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time. My university experience is somewhat different, and I believe whether this holds true or not depends a lot on the degree course: - In mathematics, there are barely any "filler courses". Basically all of them were interesting in their own right (even though because of your own interests, you will likely find some more exciting than others). - On the other hand, computer science more felt like every professor had their own opinion how the syllabus should be, and the hodgepodge that came out of it was adopted as syllabus (design by committee). Thus, there were quite a lot of interesting things to learn, but also "filler courses". Additionally, the syllabus did not feel like a "consistent whole" with a clear vision, but rather like lots of isolated courses that you had to pass.

danielfalbo 1y ago

I spent my high school afternoons on github.com/ossu/computer-science ; years later during my actual bachelor’s in computer science I just had a good time with the people around me. I’m grateful for the internet, life is good, universities are mostly for credential and the fun part is the best.

anonzzzies 1y ago

They used to be; I got my first master in that environment; academic rigor was the goal and purpose and my second one what it became after and is now; something to get a job with. The former was free and very hard the latter was loans, pressure but very easy. This happened in about 15 years in the Netherlands, between around 1990 and 2004; from excellent to shite as far as I am concerned. I was 'teaching' (assistant) and teaching for a bunch of those years and it really became quite shitty. My alma mater math & cs faculty is a joke now compared to the well deserved suffering of the 1990s rigor we had to endure. I wouldn't want to have lived the current fluff party. But sure, it's more practical as most we were taught was not practical and was not supposed to be; it was to teach us how to think.

tgv 1y ago

In contrast to many comments, I had a great time studying. Sure, the staff didn't have great teaching skills (classical prof with an unruly hairdo reading from the syllabus in a large hall), but after the first year, classes became smaller and teaching was --while not passionate-- certainly inspired in many cases. It was a period in which students could still pick an academic topic and write a (small) thesis for graduation, or do some internship and write a report about that. I had a supervisor who was into some of the newer stuff and gave me practically free reign with regular feedback. That was in 80s. I stuck around, changed faculty (AI, cogsci, neuro), and saw university change. It became very financially oriented. The number of students kept rising, norms kept dropping (2nd year student asking: what does this symbol √ mean?), students participating in real research became rarer and rarer, even PhDs shifted towards more and more teaching, and 20 years later, the most influential member of a university's board was the one doing real estate, and an academic career was based on the amount of funding obtained.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
> It became very financially oriented. > The number of students kept rising, norms kept dropping All due to the student loans scam. https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-myth-of-college.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-myth... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-second-myth-of-college.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-second-myt... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/myth-3-collegedegree-earners-earn.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/03/myth-3-college... https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-last-myth.html https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-last-myth....
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Yes, these organizations adapt to taking government money. The ideal flow for universities: 1. Set tuition high 2. Advocate for student loan systems 3. Advocate for loan forgiveness In this way, universities can simply allocate government money to themselves. That's why "everyone must be educated" campaigns always argue for government loan forgiveness and full tuition coverage. Students are a device to acquire money from the government. No more.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

Makes me think of the "The purpose of a system is what it does" axiom. Universities were always about credentials whether professional or just to indicate social class. They can at the same time be places of learning, and many still are in some disciplines. The problem is that value of the credential is now worth more (to most people) than the value of the learning/knowledge. So universities adapted to the that model. Its more profitable and university presidents can now earn millions of dollars, further intrenching the problem as it now attracts exactly the kind of people into those positions who only care about money (and themselves). The true blame for this situation, (IMHO), are the employers across the economy who require applicants have 'university degrees' for jobs that in no way need those skillsets. Bullshit requirements then led to the demand for bullshit degrees which the universities changed to supply.

Lu2025 1y ago
> employers across the economy who require applicants have 'university degrees' Somebody from HR admitted to me that they often do it to simply trim the applicant pool to a more manageable size.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  This is true across literally millions of HR people across the whole country. Every one trying to make their job a little bit easier and thus creating an externality with the monstrous negative effect on the entire education system and years of people lives pursuing pointless degrees at great cost and debt that may take some lifetimes to pay off. Absolute madness.
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    >> pursuing pointless degrees at great cost and debt Maybe if you require a liberal arts degree and immediately cut someone who's just "well read" but this is not my experience in technical and engineering focused roles.
- mofosyne 1y ago

jokoon 1y ago

Bourdieu covers this I am able to write C++, I worked as a C++ dev, and in france I cannot get a job because I failed to validate the degree for personal reasons 15 years ago, so I don't have a degree, yet I have excellent senior C++ tests. French companies want degrees. Many recruiters say that it's a problem.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

"The Controversial Exam Carl Sagan Gave His Students" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pc3IuVNuO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pc3IuVNuO0 Today, most students would fail this class. Note, the reading list is still relevant decades later. =3

Viliam1234 1y ago
Oh, youtube videos. Five minutes into the video, still just a looooooooooooooooong introduction, no example from the exam yet. That's what we get when we pay video producers per minute.
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  The YT summary text contains the reading list. These printed books are on indigo, abebooks, and amazon. Could always increase the playback speed to 1.25X for slow-talkers. lol =3

firesteelrain 1y ago

I think it is fair to say universities lean heavily on credentialing, but calling them only toll gates is too harsh. They also provide exposure to new fields, access to labs and mentors, and peer networks that are hard to replicate outside. That being said, the essay itself wanders and sometimes repeats points instead of driving the metaphor home. Tightening the structure would make the message stronger.

PicassoCTs 1y ago
[dead]

Dumblydorr 1y ago

They’re so much more, sad the comments aren’t seeing it. Making lifelong friends, learning independence, true freedom to explore topics and interests, higher challenge and opportunity for scholars. The toll gate function only makes sense from a Birds Eye view. If anything community colleges are more like toll gates. Pay a small fee to use a locally shared resource to then get your job.

cbluth 1y ago
You don't need universities to make lifelong friends or finding your learning independence

999900000999 1y ago

Everyone has a different path. I ran out of money, dropped out of college and self taught myself straight to 6 figures. Thank you Brendan Eich for JavaScript. Without it I'd probably still be making minimum wage, or working in a Java shop which might be worse. I finished my useless BA just to hang it on my wall. College should not be a job training program. It's valuable on its own merits, but the loop of you need a degree to get a job, and you need money to get a degree, so you can get a job to pay off your loans is stupid. If anything, and this is an American perspective, high school has failed. You should be able to read and write to a point of employability. If you want to go to college, it should be optional. Do it after work or part time. Outside of maybe medicine, law( which is debatable, you can technically just take the bar after a clerkship in a few states), and maybe a few other careers, college isn't needed. Why in God's name would you get a Masters in Art, the loan payments will make it impossible to survive. Just make the art! Draw. Write poems! Want to make games, make games! Knowledge is basically free, we're still adapting to this.

Planktonne 1y ago

> Absolute joy turned into anger, and anger into resentment, as I wondered how different my life might have been if I’d been taught subjects I actually cared about by professors who cared too. Then I caught myself, realizing I was being melodramatic about a decade-old grievance. This is incredibly self-indulgent. You were given opportunities you refused to engage with and are now continuing that pattern by blaming everyone else for your failures. University has no value beyond credentialism only if you don't put any in.

thunky 1y ago
> You were given opportunities you refused to engage with That's not what I read at all. They went to a good university and got good grades. They did what they were supposed to do. Then they later realized how little of value the actual education was. The university missed an opportunity to educate them, not the other way around. The student is not responsible for having a bad teacher.
- fzwang 1y ago
  I think this is the lack of accountability that I find frustrating in the education system. If the student gets a bad experience, they are always blamed first and the role of the teacher/professor/university is never questioned.
- Planktonne 1y ago
  They got good grades by panic cramming the night before exams. I've had lots of students like that (I've even been a student like that) and in every case one thing is true: they would have accomplished more with less effort if they'd focused on learning to understand rather than trying to treat everything as a memorisation task.
  - wdib 1y ago
    I think there's a misunderstanding on your behalf. My chief complaint was about the poor educational quality of universities in my country (Jordan). Forcing students to study 5 years instead of the standard 4, or teaching you mandatory subjects irrelevant to your major are not things where I could have accomplished more with less. Not going to university was not an option. It would have been the only way to guarantee work in my region.

dvdkon 1y ago

Seeing the comments here, I thought I'd quickly share my experience at Matfyz (Charles University in Prague), specifically the computer science programme: I applied for admission and was accepted based on having not-too-terrible grades from an optional high school exit test, but later all admission tests were cancelled due to COVID. The idea is to admit hundreds of applicants and keep those who pass the nontrivial first semester, which I much prefer to hard exams. Despite some missteps caused by COVID and just me being me, I really enjoyed my years of study and am now continuing in the masters programme. Some lectures were great, and most were at least decent. I learned to check who taught what class and ask around for feedback, and I'll shamelessly admit to choosing my specialisation based mostly on that feedback and personal experiences. I almost never felt that rote memorisation was being asked of me, or that it was the key to success. The vast majority of issues I had could be solved by understanding more, not just knowing more. Some examiners even allowed small cheatsheets (and plenty of people still didn't pass, so no free exams). I know that not all university students in the Czech Republic have had such a good experience. I've heard about plenty of problems with stubborn teachers or unfriendly bureaucracy, but on the whole I'd say it's about more than the degree.

orwin 1y ago

I know someone who started uni at 24, after 7 year of working as line cook then chef. She seems to have the opposite experience that you have. She has had a lot of support from the professors in her first year, and only wanted to reach bachelor. Then the seocnd year came, she started to really understand biology, and changed her goals from nutrition to pharmaco/biochemistry, changing her courses with the help of the admin. Then in Master 1, she once again pivoted towards genetics (therapeutic engineering to be exact), and it seems her M2 will push her toward a doctorate in genetics and anthropology, which is yet another pivot. For myself uni wasn't a success, and maybe we whould require children to work before getting to uni if they don't know what they wat to do yet, but at least for some, Uni is great and function exactly as it should.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> maybe we whould require children to work before getting to uni if they don't know what they wat to do yet You can easily get lots of information about various jobs using some magic technology called the "world wide web", so there is basically no need to work before university to get an informed opinion. If you are incapable of doing this, you likely simply don't "belong" into a university. Looking back at my life, the problem is rather that the only kind of internships from which you really "profit" because they extend your perspective, are basically "unreachable" if you don't have parents or friends who are insanely well-connected in upper circles. Also, if you worked in some "practical" area before going to a university, you will in my opinion become a much more misanthropic and arrogant person because you have seen how "stupid" the people were at that job. The university bubble helps you to avoid a lot of contact to "ordinary" people, and instead puts you into an environment where most people around you are much smarter, and you have to "fight hard for survival" (passing a class; passing a class with a decent mark; ...). Because this experience is very humbling (intendedly so), this makes you a much a much more humble person in your defining years.
- parpfish 1y ago
  There’s a vast gulf between “reading about a job online” and “doing a job”. Of course college bound kids know that jobs exist, but they don’t know what it’s like to do them for any extended amount of time. And I’m guessing that one of the main reasons that they don’t know what it’s like is that their parents and every other adult guiding them has been telling them, implicitly or explicitly, “you’re a college bound kid, jobs like this are beneath you. Just focus on school”

dxs 1y ago

There is a good essay with a similar theme under the title of "The Nearly-Free University" at https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-nearly-free-university.html https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-nearly-fre... As someone with two degrees (B.A. English, followed after I caught on a bit, by a B.S. in physics and computer science with minors in math and chemistry), I can say that I would not take that route again. Mostly a waste. "What you can accomplish in the real world will rapidly become more valuable than a credential such as a conventional college degree. The credentialing gatekeepers are protecting an 'asset'--the college diploma--that is largely a phantom asset for the vast majority of students." I wish.

constantcrying 1y ago

From my experience at a German university, it was very clear that every student with a desire to learn would learn relevant skills and have no trouble passing any exam. The exams never were easy and studying was required,but if you understood the subject you would definitely pass. The experience the author describes seems totally disconnected what I have ever experienced in university. The author believes (which I think is unlikely) that the university had nothing to teach to him, in my experience this always was the fault of the student. Often blaming "esoteric" and "irrelevant" subjects such as linear algebra for their lack of success, while not understanding that it is a vital course for any engineer.

yobbo 1y ago
The poster was achieved success in all metrics he was exposed to.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  Did you read the article? The author laments that he did not learn anything relevant to him during his degree.
  - yobbo 1y ago
    He graduated with "some of the highest grades" in his class.
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      How is that at all relevant to what I am saying. The author explicitly said that it wasn't.
      - yobbo 1y ago
        > Often blaming "esoteric" and "irrelevant" subjects such as linear algebra for their lack of success, while not understanding that it is a vital course for any engineer. The author was successful in his particular environment. It was only much later he understood that the content of his education wasn't valuable in itself. He is not blaming linear algebra, rather complaining that he was graded on memorisation rather than understanding.

arn3n 1y ago

I am always astonished by the range of people who claim their college degree was useless, citing rote memorization and bad classes. I had an entirely different experience and so did most people I know. University gave me the opportunity to talk to world-class researchers during office hours, to discuss ideas with my peers and have them either validated or critiqued by experts. Sure, all the information is available online (which is a miracle into itself) but without frequent contact with professors and mentors I wouldn’t have even known where to look or what existed in the field. University, for me, was a place where I was apprenticing full-time under highly experienced people, surrounded by people my age who also were doing the same. Years of self-teaching didn’t get me anywhere close to what a few semesters of expert mentorship got me. I never felt I had to memorize anything: exams consisted of system design or long programming projects or optimization challenges. I loved it, and I’m not sure if people went to different universities or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

eitally 1y ago
> or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. It's this. Most undergraduate students do not go to office hours, try to get to know their instructors, ask follow-up questions, pursue independent research, or do anything approaching "apprenticeship". Most American students matriculate into college/uni not even having ingrained behaviors that make any of these things obvious or approachable, so yes, it's understandable why many would consider higher ed the same as secondary ed: rote memorization and "bad" classes.
- jagged-chisel 1y ago
  > … Most undergraduate students do not go to office hours, try to get to know their instructors, ask follow-up questions This was actively discouraged by the instructors in the school I attended. Not by policy, but by behavior - passive-aggressively belittling students for not “getting” the subject matter, showing a complete lack of interest in reciprocating any amount of getting to know the instructor. > … ask follow-up questions, pursue independent research, or do anything approaching "apprenticeship". Most American students matriculate into college/uni not even having ingrained behaviors that make any of these things obvious or approachable … A failure of secondary education and students’ families.

bvan 1y ago

University is what >you< make of it. If you don’t like it, you have the choice to not go.

silexia 1y ago

The university system is a titanic waste of resources. Let's switch to a trusted testing system. Basically, have a thorough knowledge and skill test for any career (doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc) that anyone can pay to take and pass.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

QuiEgo 1y ago

Everyone learns differently. Lectures were all over the place for me - some useful, some awful. Professors really vary a lot in skill here. Same with tests - some helped me learn, some were rote memorization. Labs were incredibly, incredibly useful. 4 years of practice doing coding problems made me a way better programmer. I feel I got value out of the degree, even if there were some silly games to play.