3 ms·

It sounds more like a graduate program than a college education, a sort of Masters in IT entrepreneurship? As a college education, it shortchanges the students:

It sounds more like a graduate program than a college education, a sort of Masters in IT entrepreneurship? As a college education, it shortchanges the students: * There is so much more to life than a job. You will be a citizen; how do you decide on war and peace, economic issues, social policy, etc. without understanding history, politics, economics, social issues, other cultures, languages, etc.? Without being able to grasp and think critically about sophisticated propaganda, and how to challenge ideas? You will be a social animal: A member of the community, a friend, and maybe a parent. You will be a person, a being with an identity and life outside of your cubical; if all you know are technical skills for a job, what are you? What will you get out of life? Where will you learn about the things that make our lives rich, such as the arts -- you know, much of the content that is the purpose of the wires and systems you hope to build. * There is so much more to a career than one job. If you focus your education on the skills needed for one job at one time, you'll find that soon both you and the world have moved on. The demand for skills change and, more importantly, you will change, and the skills will be obsolete. * There is so much more to a job than technical skills. As simple examples, you need to understand other people, to undertand other cultures in the U.S. and around the world if you will sell to or help (or work with!) people outside of SV. As was discussed yesterday, some in SV still don't even undertand those people called "females" enough to realize they may not enjoy playing male characters. You need ideas, and most great ideas are outside tech and outside SV and older than 20 years; there are thousands of years of them. What a sad, myopic, even egocentric view of the world and of education. I feel bad for the people who will encounter so little of the world of knowledge. EDIT: Minor rewording

dollar 12y ago
This tired liberal arts approach of mandatory enlightenment is exactly why we have students graduating with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with no marketable skills. Students can become a well-rounded person on their own time, through the many life experiences they can afford when they are not paying off debt. I am so happy to see the world of academia get disrupted, and I cannot wait for the coming revolution where liberal arts education is reserved to those people with a true desire to pursue it.
- bphogan 12y ago
  No it's really not. We have students in debt because they MAJOR in areas where they end up with no marketable skills. Taking a history class, a philosophy class, and a sociology class along with some economics and science helps you solve problems with people as well as the world around you. When I was in my 20s and taking those classes I found it a waste of time. Now that I'm older I'm thankful for them. Can you get well-rounded on your own? Depends. If you only read what people in your bubble tell you to, maybe not so much. Having someone else curate things for you to read, reflect on, discuss, and do has great value in my opinion.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > We have students in debt because they MAJOR in areas where they end up with no marketable skills. I disagree. I've never hired someone based on their undergraduate major; I rarely know what they are. The skills imparted by an undergraduate educational institution are very valuable, but not directly applicable to professional work, and that even applies to graduate schools such as law, for example -- no law firm cares what classes you took or believes those skills qualify you to do that kind of work; they care you learned to write, think, and work like an attorney well enough to apprentice you to a real one. Professional learning, in every field I can think of, starts with your first job as an apprentice. Most fields consider a graduate degree to be the minimum serious credential. And after a few years in the professional world, nobody even considers your undergraduate major. Name your co-workers' or any tech leaders'. Does anyone mention it in their HN profile? Could you imagine being asked about it in an interview? > Can you get well-rounded on your own? Depends. If you only read what people in your bubble tell you to, maybe not so much. Having someone else curate things for you to read, reflect on, discuss, and do has great value in my opinion. I'd take it much further. I think people underestimate the value of a college environment. You get a cirriculum designed by an expert in the field, and then their personal tutoring. You are surrounded by resources unmatched elsewhere, from research libraries, to a room full of peers, to labs (if applicable), to a department full of experts available to talk to you. Want to learn about a subject? Try going to the office hours of a professor who spent their life studying it, and see if they have time for you. How do you even know which books to read? Which are respected in their field? What are their strengths and weaknesses and who will contextualize them for you?
leesalminen 12y ago
Is a 6-figure education the only way to achieve those skills? I don't believe that to be the case.
swatow 12y ago
>Without being able to grasp and think critically about sophisticated propaganda, and how to challenge ideas College education currently involves exposing students to sophisticated (progressive) propaganda, which they lack the skills to challenge. Nonetheless, I think the good outweighs the bad when it comes to a the broad liberal arts education. But it could be a lot better. A good start would be 1) Adding more mainstream economics (and confronting Marxists economists who have left the economics departments but continue to preach Marxism from other departments). 2) Removing censorship of non-progressive opinions. This means people should be allowed to say that different races have different IQs, that it's not ok to be gay, and that gender differences stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. People censor all of these things, then wonder why there are no moderate right wingers. The fact is moderate right wingers get fired. All that remains of the right after it's intellectuals have been eliminated or forced to pretend to be more moderate than they are, is the populist right.
- feybay 12y ago
  I'm fairly "right wing" (not the same as your listed views though), and while I have experienced a bit of derision in class while expressing my ideas, it's nothing I can't deal with. I'm an adult, disagreements are part of life. Some of my professors have been very free market(the economists oddly enough), although the majority are indeed left wing. I don't really think that it's sophisticated propaganda, but rather a very ivory tower/academic view of the world that makes college a left-leaning place. I'm fine with being taught by biased professors, I just take some of their statements with a grain of salt.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  > This means people should be allowed to say that different races have different IQs, that it's not ok to be gay, and that gender differences stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. Why should people be allowed to loudly assert unsupported claims in an institution devoted to learning?
  - swatow 12y ago
    They should, because there are many things that we don't have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove, and sometimes it's useful to hold an opinion on them anyway. If a person can make the unsupported claim that gender differences do not stem from biologically hardwired tendencies, then a person should be able the unsupported claim that gender differences do stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. Also, not being able to make "unsupported" claims is a vicious cycle. If you can't say X, then any academic study is going to phrase their conclusions very careful regarding X (or possible selectively publish - I've seen this). And then X is going to be "unsupported".

dollar 12y ago

This tired liberal arts approach of mandatory enlightenment is exactly why we have students graduating with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with no marketable skills. Students can become a well-rounded person on their own time, through the many life experiences they can afford when they are not paying off debt. I am so happy to see the world of academia get disrupted, and I cannot wait for the coming revolution where liberal arts education is reserved to those people with a true desire to pursue it.

bphogan 12y ago
No it's really not. We have students in debt because they MAJOR in areas where they end up with no marketable skills. Taking a history class, a philosophy class, and a sociology class along with some economics and science helps you solve problems with people as well as the world around you. When I was in my 20s and taking those classes I found it a waste of time. Now that I'm older I'm thankful for them. Can you get well-rounded on your own? Depends. If you only read what people in your bubble tell you to, maybe not so much. Having someone else curate things for you to read, reflect on, discuss, and do has great value in my opinion.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > We have students in debt because they MAJOR in areas where they end up with no marketable skills. I disagree. I've never hired someone based on their undergraduate major; I rarely know what they are. The skills imparted by an undergraduate educational institution are very valuable, but not directly applicable to professional work, and that even applies to graduate schools such as law, for example -- no law firm cares what classes you took or believes those skills qualify you to do that kind of work; they care you learned to write, think, and work like an attorney well enough to apprentice you to a real one. Professional learning, in every field I can think of, starts with your first job as an apprentice. Most fields consider a graduate degree to be the minimum serious credential. And after a few years in the professional world, nobody even considers your undergraduate major. Name your co-workers' or any tech leaders'. Does anyone mention it in their HN profile? Could you imagine being asked about it in an interview? > Can you get well-rounded on your own? Depends. If you only read what people in your bubble tell you to, maybe not so much. Having someone else curate things for you to read, reflect on, discuss, and do has great value in my opinion. I'd take it much further. I think people underestimate the value of a college environment. You get a cirriculum designed by an expert in the field, and then their personal tutoring. You are surrounded by resources unmatched elsewhere, from research libraries, to a room full of peers, to labs (if applicable), to a department full of experts available to talk to you. Want to learn about a subject? Try going to the office hours of a professor who spent their life studying it, and see if they have time for you. How do you even know which books to read? Which are respected in their field? What are their strengths and weaknesses and who will contextualize them for you?

leesalminen 12y ago

Is a 6-figure education the only way to achieve those skills? I don't believe that to be the case.

swatow 12y ago

>Without being able to grasp and think critically about sophisticated propaganda, and how to challenge ideas College education currently involves exposing students to sophisticated (progressive) propaganda, which they lack the skills to challenge. Nonetheless, I think the good outweighs the bad when it comes to a the broad liberal arts education. But it could be a lot better. A good start would be 1) Adding more mainstream economics (and confronting Marxists economists who have left the economics departments but continue to preach Marxism from other departments). 2) Removing censorship of non-progressive opinions. This means people should be allowed to say that different races have different IQs, that it's not ok to be gay, and that gender differences stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. People censor all of these things, then wonder why there are no moderate right wingers. The fact is moderate right wingers get fired. All that remains of the right after it's intellectuals have been eliminated or forced to pretend to be more moderate than they are, is the populist right.

feybay 12y ago
I'm fairly "right wing" (not the same as your listed views though), and while I have experienced a bit of derision in class while expressing my ideas, it's nothing I can't deal with. I'm an adult, disagreements are part of life. Some of my professors have been very free market(the economists oddly enough), although the majority are indeed left wing. I don't really think that it's sophisticated propaganda, but rather a very ivory tower/academic view of the world that makes college a left-leaning place. I'm fine with being taught by biased professors, I just take some of their statements with a grain of salt.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
> This means people should be allowed to say that different races have different IQs, that it's not ok to be gay, and that gender differences stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. Why should people be allowed to loudly assert unsupported claims in an institution devoted to learning?
- swatow 12y ago
  They should, because there are many things that we don't have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove, and sometimes it's useful to hold an opinion on them anyway. If a person can make the unsupported claim that gender differences do not stem from biologically hardwired tendencies, then a person should be able the unsupported claim that gender differences do stem from biologically hardwired tendencies. Also, not being able to make "unsupported" claims is a vicious cycle. If you can't say X, then any academic study is going to phrase their conclusions very careful regarding X (or possible selectively publish - I've seen this). And then X is going to be "unsupported".