4 ms·

I am totally on-board with what you're saying, I guess I just don't buy into the idea that school != connected to the real world. I think the idea that everyone

I am totally on-board with what you're saying, I guess I just don't buy into the idea that school != connected to the real world. I think the idea that everyone in academia is being philosophical and scholarly without contact with the real world is just wrong. There are plenty of practical skills that you can learn through school. Given the general anti-school sentiment I tend to come across in HN discussions, it might just be that I'm the odd one out when it comes to thinking that going to (grad) school is not at odds with gaining exposure to working with real world data.

ThomPete 13y ago
It's not that school isn't connected to the real wold. It's that you don't need it besides a very few areas. And if that is the case why put yourself to debt to go to school when you don't have to? Why pay a lot of money up front to acquire a knowledge you can get for free. You will have to learn the rest of your life anyway without having to go to school. You have the worlds knowledge at your fingertips. You have any expert in any field you can ask about anything you want today for more or less free. I would even claim advicing against school in most cases is a moral just cause.
- kartikkumar 13y ago
  I guess the debt argument is one that I don't have direct experience with, since I'm going to school in Europe, where the norm is not that you come out of school saddled with debt that you'll be paying off for the rest of your life. So in that sense, I guess I get your argument for the "moral cause", but I think that's more a problem specific to the US and the administration of colleges as opposed to the problem with academia as a whole. It's true that you don't need school for a lot of things in life, but that's not the same as saying there's no value to going to school. Again, what irked me was simply the statement in the blog that other than the odd stats class, there's no value in going to school if you're an aspiring data scientist. I concede that there's a large difference between the added value of undergrad programs and grad school. I strongly disagree that you can substitute what grad school gives you by simply Googling it or by taking a few online classes. In particular, mastering your own research project I think gives you a lot of real-world skills and that includes working with real, unstructured data sets.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    I am also from Europe and went to European school. What exactly is the school giving you that you can't learn on your own, by experimenting, reading, learning, studying. You can take the same courses and so on. You seem to assume that the school somehow has something unique that cant be replicated outside of it. Why can't you master your own research projects? Why wouldn't you have access to real, unstructured data outside school? Clearly the author managed just fine. I myself have managed doing quite well in another field without any formal training via a school.
    - kartikkumar 13y ago
      I'm not saying you can't do it on your own. I do believe that there are multiple ways to skin a cat, but what I don't agree with is that opting to pick the route of going through school is not going to prep you to work with real-world data. You can argue that formal training is not necessary, but I fail to see how that means that there's no value in what's taught in school. The very fact of the matter is that through my research I have gained exposure to working with real, unstructured data, and I have had the opportunity to develop skills that I believe stand me in good stead to pursue a career in industry as a data scientist. So, basically I guess I'm reversing the argument and saying that as much as you can acquire any skills without going to school (and that includes primary and secondary school), there's nothing in my experience that points to the fact that picking the route of formal training is going to place you behind the 8-ball as an aspiring data scientist. The author has managed fine indeed. My contention is with the following quote from the GigaOm post: > "“I think the applied experience is a lot more important than the academic experience. It probably can’t hurt to take a stats class in college.” I don't see applied experience and academic experience as being mutually exclusive concepts, so to make the statement that one is more important than the other is to fail to understand that as much as you can learn things on your own, school can also provide you with hands-on skils to become a data scientist.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        They are not mutually exclusive, but the problem is this: If you start with academic experience you your frame of reference is already established and its much harder to break out of that. Sure you can get a job, but you are not more likely to be influential in your field just because you have an education.

ThomPete 13y ago

It's not that school isn't connected to the real wold. It's that you don't need it besides a very few areas. And if that is the case why put yourself to debt to go to school when you don't have to? Why pay a lot of money up front to acquire a knowledge you can get for free. You will have to learn the rest of your life anyway without having to go to school. You have the worlds knowledge at your fingertips. You have any expert in any field you can ask about anything you want today for more or less free. I would even claim advicing against school in most cases is a moral just cause.

kartikkumar 13y ago
I guess the debt argument is one that I don't have direct experience with, since I'm going to school in Europe, where the norm is not that you come out of school saddled with debt that you'll be paying off for the rest of your life. So in that sense, I guess I get your argument for the "moral cause", but I think that's more a problem specific to the US and the administration of colleges as opposed to the problem with academia as a whole. It's true that you don't need school for a lot of things in life, but that's not the same as saying there's no value to going to school. Again, what irked me was simply the statement in the blog that other than the odd stats class, there's no value in going to school if you're an aspiring data scientist. I concede that there's a large difference between the added value of undergrad programs and grad school. I strongly disagree that you can substitute what grad school gives you by simply Googling it or by taking a few online classes. In particular, mastering your own research project I think gives you a lot of real-world skills and that includes working with real, unstructured data sets.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I am also from Europe and went to European school. What exactly is the school giving you that you can't learn on your own, by experimenting, reading, learning, studying. You can take the same courses and so on. You seem to assume that the school somehow has something unique that cant be replicated outside of it. Why can't you master your own research projects? Why wouldn't you have access to real, unstructured data outside school? Clearly the author managed just fine. I myself have managed doing quite well in another field without any formal training via a school.
  - kartikkumar 13y ago
    I'm not saying you can't do it on your own. I do believe that there are multiple ways to skin a cat, but what I don't agree with is that opting to pick the route of going through school is not going to prep you to work with real-world data. You can argue that formal training is not necessary, but I fail to see how that means that there's no value in what's taught in school. The very fact of the matter is that through my research I have gained exposure to working with real, unstructured data, and I have had the opportunity to develop skills that I believe stand me in good stead to pursue a career in industry as a data scientist. So, basically I guess I'm reversing the argument and saying that as much as you can acquire any skills without going to school (and that includes primary and secondary school), there's nothing in my experience that points to the fact that picking the route of formal training is going to place you behind the 8-ball as an aspiring data scientist. The author has managed fine indeed. My contention is with the following quote from the GigaOm post: > "“I think the applied experience is a lot more important than the academic experience. It probably can’t hurt to take a stats class in college.” I don't see applied experience and academic experience as being mutually exclusive concepts, so to make the statement that one is more important than the other is to fail to understand that as much as you can learn things on your own, school can also provide you with hands-on skils to become a data scientist.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      They are not mutually exclusive, but the problem is this: If you start with academic experience you your frame of reference is already established and its much harder to break out of that. Sure you can get a job, but you are not more likely to be influential in your field just because you have an education.