How Useful is College?

[Vlerchan]

I decided that any response would derail F.M. Mars's thread so I created this separate one. I will respond to statements in order of whichever ones I think help create a better OP to start a debate from.

Incoming effort post.

man I just sound like such a killjoy here
Wonder what that's about to make me.

higher education is sold as being kind of like visiting the video game store, choosing a disc off the rack, paying the cashier and then bringing it home, insert into slot, press play.
Yes. And I don't believe this is correct. In fact I'm of the opinion that higher education offers little educational benefit and is for the most part a signal. I use the term signal to refer to it indicating that a job-candidate possesses a certain range of skills. Of course people still learn things but for the most part this process is steeped in reference to well-entrenched abilities.

By-and-large people go to college in a bid to signal their pre-disposition towards a certain range of skills.

That means that the disk might not fit into everyone's console and that's also fine.

[...] and the field you excel in may or may not be the same one that's in high demand and pays a lot.
Before deciding to attend third level education there's some manner of cost-benefit analysis to do. Your field might not offer the best compensation - but is the expected-compensation worth more than the various costs associated with going to college.

I imagine in most cases that's an affirmative. Even if being a librarian isn't highly compensated in monetary terms I would much rather do a degree in history and work as one because there's pretty significant non-monetary compensation vis-á-vis working in a customer-service job [which I suck at - and hate(d) doing].

a given field may also pay a lot but have less job security vs. another job that pays less but has more job security.
The extra pay is compensation for having a lot less job security.

Hedge-funds and Universities hire Economics graduate students with (roughly) the same skill-set. Those entering a top hedge-funds can expect a pretty significant wage-premium over what those entering academia as a result of this. .

the chances of ending up stuck in a job that you hate and are miserable in but can't leave because the money is just good enough to scrape by are extremely high, even if you've gone to Prof.
There's a big issue here where you presume everyone is [i]just scraping by when in fact there's pretty significant differences in the standard of living between high-skill labour and non/low-skill labour.

On an anecdotal level I hung out with my cousin at the weekend. Haven't seen him in a while. Both of us are the same age - and both graduated high school at the same time. I did a lot better than he did. He works at a paint factory washing chemicals out of bins - it sometimes seeps through his clothes and rashes his skin and it looks like his eyebrows are starting to fall out. He has a few beers at the weekend - maybe goes to a nightclub.

I'm looking like graduating into a position where I punch symbols into a computer and make two- to three-times his annual wage. I imagine I won't buy many beers at the weekend and save up to go on vacation to some beach-y island that I can't spell the name of. The difference in our standards of living is actually pretty disgusting once you think about.

I'm entirely sceptical that I won't see a massive increase in my standard of living from pursuing a college degree. It might seem like I'm just scraping by but odds are I've stacked my fridge with craft beers and I live in a house with a view.

some people manage, I suppose, but going in with unrealistic expectations (i.e. that the degree is in fact a magic path to success that they're presented as) will lead to a huge disappointment down the road once you get a dose of the free market.
Sure but the expected standard of living of a college graduate is much higher than that of a non-college graduate. There's a ridiculous number of people doing economics that think they'll be starring in The Bigger Short come their 28th birthday. These exaggerations are little ammunition against the fundamental argument here: that college graduates can expect to have a higher standard of living.

$24 or even 18/hr (before taxes) sounds decent until you factor in living expenses and other costs that will quickly turn your eighteen an hour into an effective zero dollars an hour.
The fact the the likelihood is that the median college graduate will be left with little at the end of the month doesn't undermine the fact that she will have purchased from a higher-quality basket of goods.

I have read economics PhDs on 200,000 per year complaining that monthly income doesn't allow them to reach ends meet - Serious: It was sort of disturbing. The fact that this person is probably talking about an 'end' that is entirely alien to the median college graduate makes there situations pretty incomparable though.

[...] no credit is effectively the same as bad credit [...]
I have an online friend - who coincidently graduated from college 12 months ago. What she's done is take out a credit card and use it to purchase gas once a month. She then precedes to pay this off - leaving her with a much better credit score than might have been the case otherwise.

I'm not sure about the U.S. but when I worked in the bank in Ireland it was pretty easy to get one.

you've now landed two huge debts instead of one.
You're paying off this debt on the back of expected earnings. Most college graduates have significantly increased wages over the course of a thirty year period. That's actually the point in using long-term debt to finance large projects such as owning a house.

I can agree though. I went through enough mortgage - and loan - files when worked to decide that I'm never exposing myself to such liabilities.

but I haven't gone through with it since failure in my case is even more certain than death and taxes.
You actually come across as a fair bit above average intelligence. I have a hard time imaging you wouldn't do fine if the college-campus speech codes didn't engender your lynching.

[StoppingTom]

I agree with the signal part most of all, one could argue that you don't *need* college, and that's true, but going through college and getting my Bachelor's shows I'm qualified (and board certified) for the job, and that's most important. Also, higher education affords you the opportunity to start networking and getting yourself a job. For example, part of my curriculum is five internships with five different hospitals, which basically guarantees me a job in a growing field in some way once I graduate.

[phuckphace]

noice effort post, m8. thanks for starting this!

Yes. And I don't believe this is correct. In fact I'm of the opinion that higher education offers little educational benefit and is for the most part a signal. I use the term signal to refer to it indicating that a job-candidate possesses a certain range of skills. Of course people still learn things but for the most part this process is steeped in reference to well-entrenched abilities.

I suppose this is one of the main reasons I tend to view college as a waste of money since - in theory - forking over all that money or jumping into such staggering debt to attend what's billed as an institution of learning should conclude with the graduate walking out with a significant amount of knowledge under their belt.

there's been a definite shift from former times where a higher education did impart such knowledge, to the present where degrees are like entrance passes to the pay-to-win casino economy. you can probably imagine why I hesitate to jump in on this ride even assuming money is no object when it comes to tuition costs.

Before deciding to attend third level education there's some manner of cost-benefit analysis to do. Your field might not offer the best compensation - but is the expected-compensation worth more than the various costs associated with going to college.

true. I get the impression that many people attend out of social pressure (i.e. parents) or with the expectation that their degree will buy them all the jobs, or simply because they assume they "have" to.

The extra pay is compensation for having a lot less job security.

and then there are the jobs that pay mid-tier compensation and also lay off frequently.

what makes this extra fun is that you can't always know what kind of job security you're getting beforehand - in this economy you're betting a full hand against unknown odds that are stacked drastically against you. a talking tapeworm and all that.

Hedge-funds and Universities hire Economics graduate students with (roughly) the same skill-set. Those entering a top hedge-funds can expect a pretty significant wage-premium over what those entering academia as a result of this. .

On an anecdotal level I hung out with my cousin at the weekend. Haven't seen him in a while. Both of us are the same age - and both graduated high school at the same time. I did a lot better than he did. He works at a paint factory washing chemicals out of bins - it sometimes seeps through his clothes and rashes his skin and it looks like his eyebrows are starting to fall out. He has a few beers at the weekend - maybe goes to a nightclub.

I'm looking like graduating into a position where I punch symbols into a computer and make two- to three-times his annual wage. I imagine I won't buy many beers at the weekend and save up to go on vacation to some beach-y island that I can't spell the name of. The difference in our standards of living is actually pretty disgusting once you think about.

I'm entirely sceptical that I won't see a massive increase in my standard of living from pursuing a college degree. It might seem like I'm [i]just scraping by but odds are I've stacked my fridge with craft beers and I live in a house with a view.

I think this exemplifies the point I made earlier about one's personal skill-set limiting their realistic career choices. for example those with bleep-bloop-bleep analytical personalities tend to perform poorly in customer service jobs but can expect to make bundles doing those bleep-bloop pareto.exe calculations for big firms. if your skill-set doesn't fit with what the economy is demanding, then you're pretty much doomed to low-compensation jobs forever (unless you get very lucky).

I have read economics PhDs on 200,000 per year complaining that monthly income doesn't allow them to reach ends meet - Serious: It was sort of disturbing. The fact that this person is probably talking about an 'end' that is entirely alien to the median college graduate makes there situations pretty incomparable though.

lol.

I can agree though. I went through enough mortgage - and loan - files when worked to decide that I'm never exposing myself to such liabilities.

the only way I'll ever own a house is if I win the lottery (or otherwise acquire a large sum) and can pay cash for it.

You actually come across as a fair bit above average intelligence. I have a hard time imaging you wouldn't do fine if the college-campus speech codes didn't engender your lynching.

I come across that way because I can wrangle the English language without much effort - but in reality it's because the campuses don't have safe-spaces away from math. mathematics has been the bane of my existence for as long as I can remember - it's very odd because I understand the fundamentals and the logical nature of it all, but when it comes down to actually performing the operations without a calculator, I'm sunk. it looks like an alphabet soup of Greek letters.

how bad is it, you ask? I attempted to cheat my way out of a couple math classes by using a TI-84 and Wolfram Alpha, which worked like a charm until the instructor wanted to "see our work." Rho Eta Kappa Tau.

----

incidentally, my math struggle is part of what made racialism such an easy sell for me personally - if individuals can show such drastic variances in intelligence and cognitive ability, then why shouldn't these differences also exist across groups? but that's another thread. :D

[Melodic]

It's very useful for careers such as business, law, education, medical, etc. Not all careers require/need a degree and a degree doesn't guarantee you a career. Some careers just require skill, passion, and experience. In my opinion, It's best to look up the career you're pursuing and look at the job requirements before you waste time and money on college.

[Judean Zealot]

In former times, the University was truly a place where ideas were debated and formed, and from there exerted an influence on public affairs. That has completely degenerated by this point in time, to the extent where the campus is merely a reflection of the vulgarity of surrounding society. Instead of being an isle of learning amidst a sea of barbarism, it has become a bastion of those very values which threaten all learning. Dogmatic relativism, intellectual sloth, and sexual excess are the hallmarks of the modern university, with the only certainty being that any objective morality (excepting the dogmas of openness and egalitarianism) has been declared anathema on an institutional level. The only value I see in a modern university education is the access to academic resources that are otherwise commodified and withheld from the general public, save at prohibitive cost.

[sqishy]

I'm going to give a specific response post myself, just so people know where I am at (and also for myself).

_______________


[...] I'm of the opinion that higher education offers little educational benefit and is for the most part a signal. I use the term signal to refer to it indicating that a job-candidate possesses a certain range of skills. Of course people still learn things but for the most part this process is steeped in reference to well-entrenched abilities.


By-and-large people go to college in a bid to signal their pre-disposition towards a certain range of skills.


That means that the disk might not fit into everyone's console and that's also fine.

If we take education to mean learning of knowledge, then I agree if you mean to say university courses are more for a long trip to an intended career with certain learned/developed skills, rather than just knowing more about a certain field of the world/life/etc. Knowledge is part of it, but 'inferior' to what you are doing it for, at least today.



Before deciding to attend third level education there's some manner of cost-benefit analysis to do. Your field might not offer the best compensation - but is the expected-compensation worth more than the various costs associated with going to college.

If you mean benefit being the experiences and knowledge got through the process, along with the intention of being in an advantage regarding certain skills for certain possible careers, then I can only agree.



The extra pay is compensation for having a lot less job security.

Hedge-funds and Universities hire Economics graduate students with (roughly) the same skill-set. Those entering a top hedge-funds can expect a pretty significant wage-premium over what those entering academia as a result of this. .

Making sense financially.



There's a big issue here where you presume everyone is [i]just scraping by when in fact there's pretty significant differences in the standard of living between high-skill labour and non/low-skill labour.

I share the similar lack of pessimism :P .



On an anecdotal level I hung out with my cousin at the weekend. Haven't seen him in a while. Both of us are the same age - and both graduated high school at the same time. I did a lot better than he did. He works at a paint factory washing chemicals out of bins - it sometimes seeps through his clothes and rashes his skin and it looks like his eyebrows are starting to fall out. He has a few beers at the weekend - maybe goes to a nightclub.

I'm looking like graduating into a position where I punch symbols into a computer and make two- to three-times his annual wage. I imagine I won't buy many beers at the weekend and save up to go on vacation to some beach-y island that I can't spell the name of. The difference in our standards of living is actually pretty disgusting once you think about.

I'm entirely sceptical that I won't see a massive increase in my standard of living from pursuing a college degree. It might seem like I'm just scraping by but odds are I've stacked my fridge with craft beers and I live in a house with a view.

Well, I hope your cousin won't die prematurely for anything related to his job.



Sure but the expected standard of living of a college graduate is much higher than that of a non-college graduate. There's a ridiculous number of people doing economics that think they'll be starring in The Bigger Short come their 28th birthday. These exaggerations are little ammunition against the fundamental argument here: that college graduates can expect to have a higher standard of living.

Adds fuel to motivation, yes.



I have read economics PhDs on 200,000 per year complaining that monthly income doesn't allow them to reach ends meet - Serious: It was sort of disturbing.

Do you mean that their income was actually not enough to live by? (My first impression may be clearly mislead - I hope.)



I'm not sure about the U.S. but when I worked in the bank in Ireland it was pretty easy to get one.

If that branch was in front of TCD then we have probably seen each other more than both of us think :P . (Completely off-topic I know, but just saying anyhow.)

_______________


I'm guessing that this thread is evaluating university through an economically pragmatic angle; I assume you are aware that we can evaluate it through others too. For example, I like my course because of the experiences due to itself and everything related, rather than me thinking into the future in a chain through seeing no proper value in things, except for having that be done through how it's going to determine/influence my future. We can live in the present sometimes! Is college only a long route to a job, like school was for college? (I'm not advocating total ignorance of the future either, of course.)

I will respond more to posts in this thread soon; have a tutorial to get to (literally - no pun intended).

_______________
[EDIT]

In former times, the University was truly a place where ideas were debated and formed, and from there exerted an influence on public affairs.

By 'former times', do you mean Classical (Ancient) Greece, or Roman Empire times?


That has completely degenerated by this point in time, to the extent where the campus is merely a reflection of the vulgarity of surrounding society. Instead of being an isle of learning amidst a sea of barbarism, it has become a bastion of those very values which threaten all learning.

I'm making guesses that surrounding society for you is of contemporary western nature.
I get that you really don't like surrounding society by your wording, but I wonder why you are using these specific words (e.g. barbarism).



Dogmatic relativism[...]

I share your view from a purely philosophical angle, in that I'm not much of a fan of dogma. That said, at least it's a move from the previous dogmatic absolute ideologies.



[...]intellectual sloth[...]

I don't know exactly what you mean here, other than that you see general intellectual decline of some sort.


[...]and sexual excess[...]

Without going into LGBT+ matters any more than strictly necessary in this thread's context (which I am guessing is what you are indirectly referring to), I will say that I actually don't have my sex drive's magnitude on parallel with the force of a jet engine, even though I happen to visit the LGBT society in the university.

If you did not mean that, then the presence of condoms cannot be a bad thing, from arguing that they reduce chances of accidental pregnancies/STDs/etc. I delve no further, as we'll be leaving the context of how useful college/uni is.


[...] only certainty being that any objective morality (excepting the dogmas of openness and egalitarianism) has been declared anathema on an institutional level.

Taking what you've said, I'm not seeing much bad in it. It's a nice neutral framework for which education is the most important factor at work here, being a university. Everything else can be made irrelevant, for efficiency's sake. University is for education, it does not need to be a church (of any religion, or analogue thereof) since there are churches elsewhere, for example.



The only value I see in a modern university education is the access to academic resources that are otherwise commodified and withheld from the general public, save at prohibitive cost.

This I agree with.

- - - - - - -

Have you heard of juvenoia?

[Vlerchan]

Also, higher education affords you the opportunity to start networking and getting yourself a job.
This is actually a pretty important consideration. In certain front-facing occupations that involve interactions with clients (and so on) the signal exhibited from educational attainment alone is bound to be noisy. That's the reason networking tends to be incorporated into the modern university curriculum - Even just consider the host of societies.

---

I suppose this is one of the main reasons I tend to view college as a waste of money since - in theory - forking over all that money or jumping into such staggering debt to attend what's billed as an institution of learning should conclude with the graduate walking out with a significant amount of knowledge under their belt.
I can agree here. In fact I'm not even sure university operates as an effective signal when it seems intent on rubberstamping as many degrees as possible. I have one lecturer suggest to me that he's bounded from above on the numbers he can fail in a given year.

Nonetheless - despite this - it does signal aptitude at least with regards to grade-performance [even if grade inflation disproportionately benefits those at the right-extreme]. That does mean it can still facilitate better matching and thus better opportunities for college-graduates even if you don't consider yourself better educated on the way out.

But the logic of signalling I posited in the last post exists regardless of whether true knowledge is imparted. That is - If you presume that the absorption on knowledge is dependent on natural predispositions towards certain skills and activities. That works in-line with your own socio-biological determinism.

you can probably imagine why I hesitate to jump in on this ride even assuming money is no object when it comes to tuition costs.
There's still considerable gain found in holding an entrance pass that - in monetary-terms at the least - outstrips the opportunity cost of attendance and the future debt-burden.

Like Judean Zealot also said: Through access to a university you can better yourself in your own time (I have 12 hours of lectures a week - everything I learn comes from whatever I achieve outside those times).

and then there are the jobs that pay mid-tier compensation and also lay off frequently.
The point remains that job-security is priced into the wage or compensation otherwise.

I think this exemplifies the point I made earlier about one's personal skill-set limiting their realistic career choices [...] if your skill-set doesn't fit with what the economy is demanding, then you're pretty much doomed to low-compensation jobs forever (unless you get very lucky).
I can totally agree with this.

However the end I see universities as meeting is the matching of workers of a certain skill level with the employment where they can be most productive. University facilitates high-productivity workers in signalling their higher productivity and these workers engage in this to their own benefit. The distribution of wealth can be corrected for after-the-fact.

University at the least - and please note that I'd hope for a much higher functioning than this - is there to efficiently match people in a given economy.

I come across that way because I can wrangle the English language without much effort - but in reality it's because the campuses don't have safe-spaces away from math.
In Europe you can take courses that will never have you look at an equation. But I remember hearing something like U.S. colleges tending to require some amount of mathematics is taken to compensate for the atrocious standard in high schools.

if individuals can show such drastic variances in intelligence and cognitive ability, then why shouldn't these differences also exist across groups?
Because in times of yonder these individuals would have been unable to breed - because a bear ate them or something - and thus the gene wasn't retained long. The likelihood is that no racial group - if that can even be defined - developed independent of challenges that stressed higher cognitive faculties.

But another time, I agree.

Do you mean that their income was actually not enough to live by? (My first impression may be clearly mislead - I hope.)
Yes. The justification was something like 'poverty is relative post-subsistence'.

Economics majors tend to be pretty awful people. It self-selects for selfishness and greed and then fosters these tendencies, has been the findings of multiple studies.

(I'm - of course - the exception).

Is college only a long route to a job, like school was for college? (I'm not advocating total ignorance of the future either, of course.)
I'm attempting to refer to university as being a nexus connecting us to welfare-enhancing opportunities. This might be a good job.

It's of course possible to be quite present-biased and factor in the welfare-boost for attendance into all this decision making.

---

If that branch was in front of TCD then we have probably seen each other more than both of us think . (Completely off-topic I know, but just saying anyhow.)
I opened a bank account with the KBC that was camped at the gates of TCD for the free 100euro. Though then I forgot to go to a branch with I.D.

[West Coast Sheriff]

I'm going to become a teacher so I need to attend university. For some professions, like becoming a doctor, a counselor etc. you need a degree. However, college is overrated and has become a way of making money.

[Kahn]

I don't know anything about college, really, and only one of my family members has ever gone on to pursue a degree, so I'm sorry I have nothing substantial to add. I just want to thank Vlerchan for taking the time to write these posts, and thank you all for your personal sentiments regarding university. I'm entering community college two years out of high school with absolutely zero help from my family. Signed up on my own, and I'm paying for everything on my own purely because I'm sick of working menial jobs for shit pay. Not quite sure what to expect or what my endgame is but I wanted to at least get my foot in the door. This thread has definitely been an eye opener and eases my fear of accruing insurmountable debt.

Again, thank you.

[sqishy]

Yes. The justification was something like 'poverty is relative post-subsistence'.

Economics majors tend to be pretty awful people. It self-selects for selfishness and greed and then fosters these tendencies, has been the findings of multiple studies.

(I'm - of course - the exception).

Right, I'm getting the picture now.



I'm attempting to refer to university as being a nexus connecting us to welfare-enhancing opportunities. This might be a good job.

It's of course possible to be quite present-biased and factor in the welfare-boost for attendance into all this decision making.

Alright.



I opened a bank account with the KBC that was camped at the gates of TCD for the free 100euro. Though then I forgot to go to a branch with I.D.

I didn't know that was a thing; it's some hell of enticement which makes sense to go for, so I get it.

[phuckphace]

stumbled across this yesterday, just had to share...

http://i.imgur.com/vUEkyBL.png

In fact I'm not even sure university operates as an effective signal when it seems intent on rubberstamping as many degrees as possible. I have one lecturer suggest to me that he's bounded from above on the numbers he can fail in a given year.

this hints at another issue I have with college in the current year - we've not only devalued the knowledge itself but also (in most cases) even the degree itself by producing too many of them. Joe Blow with a degree doesn't really stand out when there are 10,000 other other Joe Blows with the same degree in line behind him. is it universities jonesing for that joocy grant money? is it high-skill industry firms who want an endless supply of easily replaceable peons available just like McDonald's? I suspect a little of both.

but whatever the cause I know from firsthand experience that many of the newer top-level decision-makers in my own company were hired on the basis of their business degrees - the signal - and they're actual morons who have made a lot of disastrous changes to the company for no good reason. whatever they're teaching business school graduates these days is apparently some form of "if it ain't broke, stick your dick in it and jackhammer that motherfucker."

In Europe you can take courses that will never have you look at an equation. But I remember hearing something like U.S. colleges tending to require some amount of mathematics is taken to compensate for the atrocious standard in high schools.

I was very startled when I met Euros on the internet who took calculus at age 14 - 15 as part of the standard course. students that age in the US "learn" about Rosa Parks not giving up she seat on da bus and whatnot.

[Porpoise101]

I was very startled when I met Euros on the internet who took calculus at age 14 - 15 as part of the standard course. students that age in the US "learn" about Rosa Parks not giving up she seat on da bus and whatnot.
It's not just the Euros. So many Indians I know here in America do extra math lessons at payed places like Kumon or whatever. Then the parent will say "the maths courses do not challenge my child." And then the middle schoolers get teleported to the high school to do pre calc ever day then on. When they reach high school, they go to the community colleges. At least this is what I know from me and my friends' experiences. I think it's also popular with the Japanese people because a lot of them are expats where I live. So they send their kids to do extra work so they will fall behind less when they go back to Japan.

[phuckphace]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology? more like the Mandarin Institute of Technology lel and/or lmao (seriously that place looks like the Chinese embassy these days)

a big part of the devaluation of degrees comes from the glut of striving foreigners we now have to compete with, who grind through college like it's a MMORPG and can expect to be hired on at big tech firms at a volume discount. Microsoft and their army of perma-temp slaves is only one of many examples

[Porpoise101]

a big part of the devaluation of degrees comes from the glut of striving foreigners we now have to compete with, who grind through college like it's a MMORPG and can expect to be hired on at big tech firms at a volume discount.
Wow it's so terrible having to actually compete with people who try.
(end sarcasm)
Ok, I get that there are some low quality workers that are imported, that's bad. They are treated poorly and natives get screwed. It's a losing scenario for everyone but the company.

The students coming from overseas are different. They come from wealthy families usually, and by now universities don't actively seek out immigrant students (at least Asians). Back in my father's day, you could go to the US or Australia (my dad picked America) and then the school would give you scholarships and other support. Back then, going back to India after college would have been stupid because you would make more money doing the same thing. But nowadays for Asians I think it's different. My cousin is studying here and she's going straight back to India when she is finished. Part of it is because of family. But the other part is because it's feasible and worthwhile to go back, and I doubt that she is the only one. Of course many also stay, but remember that the people coming aren't the worst that could come.

If any degrees have been devalued it's ones that Asians don't stereotypically take: Lib arts, art, English, languages, etc.

[Vlerchan]

stumbled across this yesterday, just had to share...
Interesting enough is that it wasn't so long ago when people that majored in classics would have been well placed to enter the civil service in countries like Britian where the bureaucracy was formally quite generalist.

Joe Blow with a degree doesn't really stand out when there are 10,000 other other Joe Blows with the same degree in line behind him.
I can agree that the proliferation of Bachelors has caused significant issues for graduates.

Though it doesn't seem the same occurs with Masters degrees.

I suspect a little of both.
In Europe - which graduates an awful lot more people as a proportion of it's population - it's down to politicians desiring a highly educated workforce to encourage foreign-direct investment and-so informally encouraging the practice.

It's signalling on the scale of a nation.

but whatever the cause I know from firsthand experience that many of the newer top-level decision-makers in my own company were hired on the basis of their business degrees - the signal - and they're actual morons who have made a lot of disastrous changes to the company for no good reason. whatever they're teaching business school graduates these days is apparently some form of "if it ain't broke, stick your dick in it and jackhammer that motherfucker."
On the brightside - I guess - in the long-run the market should recognise it's a false-signal and boot-out these people. Though it seems pretty obvious to me that internal-advancement would be far superior to hiring management BAs - a super-noisy signal.

I was very startled when I met Euros on the internet who took calculus at age 14 - 15 as part of the standard course. students that age in the US "learn" about Rosa Parks not giving up she seat on da bus and whatnot.
We learned about Rosa Parks at the same time.

Though the U.S.'s education systems approach to history teaching seems pretty horrific too.

a big part of the devaluation of degrees comes from the glut of striving foreigners we now have to compete with, who grind through college like it's a MMORPG and can expect to be hired on at big tech firms at a volume discount.
Especially with high-skill labour I think that if a foreign-national is better then the foreign-national should get the job. What's enticing about hiring foreign-national in tech. firms though is that it ensures against premature departure - and a loss of investment in training. There's pretty major issues in that sector with employees quickly leaving for better opportunities soon into their contract.

Full disclaimer though: I intend to be one of the foreign-nationals stealing jobs from the heroic white proletarian class.

[Porpoise101]

On the brightside - I guess - in the long-run the market should recognise it's a false-signal and boot-out these people.

Though the U.S.'s education systems approach to history teaching seems pretty horrific too.
>Insert Keynes Quote Here

Maybe there should be new standards for a degree to be accredited.

As for history, it's pretty terrible. We go from the beginnings of man to the fall of Rome. Then we skip all the way to the beginnings of the US. After that we learn the history of Michigan (state standard). In high school we realised that China, India, and the Islamic world were things. Then we zoomed to the fall of Napoleon. It's very jumbled and I don't know why. At least in this school they teach us how to analyse sources and stuff.

[Kahn]

Full disclaimer though: I intend to be one of the foreign-nationals stealing jobs from the heroic white proletarian class.

Monster.

[Babs]

I kind of believe in knowledge for knowledge's sake, though I guess that doesn't have much to do with usefulness. In terms of building a stable career, well, that depends on which degree one is pursuing. Someone with a degree in chemistry or some shit like that seems a lot more employable than someone with a degree in women's studies, for example.

[phuckphace]

Full disclaimer though: I intend to be one of the foreign-nationals stealing jobs from the heroic white proletarian class.

well as long as you're white...

heh heh heh.

seriously though if firms are going to hire foreigners I'd rather it be from Europe at least.

funny story - I ran into exactly such a person just the other day: an Irish guy (lol) wearing an employee ID on a lanyard. he was bald and fat and didn't stand out at all from any of the natives waddling around until he opened his mouth to complement us on our cigarette prices :D

[ktkie]

Hi there. I don't know much about college and if anyone would like to care about my input, here it goes:

Education is important (well, to me, it is)

Unfortunately with much dismay, I have bad habits that have disabled me to reach my full potential such as laziness, poor work ethic. I rely on my intelligence. 10 years down the track, I wish I had made better habits so I would be able to explore my options more instead of predicting a lonely and depressing future.

Sorry if this is not as relevant to the topic, but I like the ramblings of the wise.

[Vlerchan]

funny story - I ran into exactly such a person just the other day: an Irish guy (lol) wearing an employee ID on a lanyard. he was bald and fat and didn't stand out at all from any of the natives waddling around until he opened his mouth to complement us on our cigarette prices
Irish culture is hugely accommodating of outward-emigration. Everyone on my mam's side lived abroad at on stage or another - some never returned other than for holidays.

The only Americans I see here are the ones asking for directions to Temple Bar (across the road - It's always right across the road).

[Porpoise101]

The only Americans I see here are the ones asking for directions to Temple Bar (across the road - It's always right across the road).
I once saw an article saying many Americans move to Ireland. Is that true from your experience?

[Vlerchan]

I once saw an article saying many Americans move to Ireland. Is that true from your experience?
I'm aware of one person that has american citizenship as an anchor-baby. It's possible that it might be older people looking for seclusion - but from where I stand I haven't been seeing that at all.

If I find statistics I'll link them though.

[sqishy]

The only Americans I see here are the ones asking for directions to Temple Bar (across the road - It's always right across the road).

Or ones with caps in groups that wonder where Kelly's Book is.

[Vlerchan]

I thought it would be nice to keep this thread alive. I had a thought after reading some posts in the Nihilism thread.

Nowadays we view education as mere vocational training, and there is no longer any place for the humanities in our materialist society.
Probably, I replied, that would be the better way; and when I hear you say this,
I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures
among us which are adapted to different occupations.

Very true.

And will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations,
or when he has only one?

When he has only one.

Plato The Republic pp. 222 (http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf)

I presume I'm correct in interpreting this as desiring a division and specialisation of labour.

Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen [iron and brass].

ibid: 271 - 272

I presume Socrates would not have desired that those of Iron- and Brass-souls be educated in the same manner of the Warrior-Guardians and Philosopher-Kings. Their role was orientated towards the purely function supply of needs. Thus, one would presume that the majority of the education supplied would be principally vocational.

In a sense, the upper echelons of higher-education has become the arena in which we separate the gold from the silver. That is, it's in pursuit of a PhD where one's true nature is revealed. I realise this runs into the original critique, that universities have become mere reflections of the vulgarities that surround them. But, I raise that question, as to what is the source of this within universities: if not the emitter, then the reflector.

The answer, is the humanities, and this also explains it's decline as an option for younger people. It's research agenda, and not just the content but also the methodological underpinnings, has led to it's more-or-less entire discreditation amongst the educated classes. What occurred, mass education* opened it up and given the much lower barriers to entry as far as involvement is concerned**, it could absorb the weak and incompetent. Furthermore, discussion proliferated amongst intelligent lay-people, such as myself, where it was possible to discuss big ideas without requirement to first understand the technical foundations underpinning link in other disciplines, and this only diluted it's impression to the public further***.

The bad drove out the good, and we're left with the current mess.

---

* Which professed that all were capable of it and thus standards have been diluted to such an extent that it barely offers a signalling effect of ability. I'm looking like I might graduate with a Bachelors without ever coming across a new idea (outside of law).

** In economics, for example, there is a much higher standard set in terms of the technical rigour required. This is also through for the physical and mathematical sciences, and increasingly so for the social sciences (ex. anthropology). You might even notice this in the trends of this discussion on virtual-teen, the more popular topics are the ones with the much lower barriers of entry.

*** This also occurs in the social-sciences, where a belief reigns that the technical foundations are unimportant. In economics there is 'fiscal liberals' and 'fiscal conservatives', and 'trickle-down economics' or 'neoliberalism', none of which hold actual meaning as descriptors within economics. This false, diluted impression does the entire field a dis-service.

Thus Newton, Einstein, and Bohr were philosophers, while Aristotle and Maimonides were men of science.
Being quite honest, the disciplines in these times were in a far more rudimentary state than they persist currently. That it's impressive for the likes of economists such as Acemoglu (https://ideas.repec.org/e/pac16.html) to be publishing across sub-disciplines should indicate the considerable depth of learning that is required to remain at the horizon of a given field.

I have no issue at all with academic specialisation.

I can agree in that education is turning more into an industry whose end is for a specific career in sustaining the economy[.]
The point I argued in this thread was that the role of university is to signal one's natural proficiency (comparative advantage) in a given field. The internet might be seen as successfully displacing the university as a centre of intelligent discourse, as is clear to me from centres such as virtual-teen.

Universities were probably displaced because geographical constraints placed severe limitations on the efficiencies of matching like-minded people, than the internet lacks.

[...] this in addition with some views that the sciences are inherently more important than the arts/humanities, is a growing problem.
I'm unsure why this is considered a problem.

There's an oversupply of humanities graduates in the system.

[sqishy]

I thought it would be nice to keep this thread alive. I had a thought after reading some posts in the Nihilism thread.

I was going to say you were sneaky in trans-thread quoting, but I won't be so mean :D .



The point I argued in this thread was that the role of university is to signal one's natural proficiency (comparative advantage) in a given field. The internet might be seen as successfully displacing the university as a centre of intelligent discourse, as is clear to me from centres such as virtual-teen.

Universities were probably displaced because geographical constraints placed severe limitations on the efficiencies of matching like-minded people, than the internet lacks.

I'm alright with the comparative advantage part, with the university itself. I meant that the function universities are playing feels to be approaching another stage in eventually having a career that is seen as more useful when being productive for the economy.

I wasn't intending to bring the internet into it to be honest; I was focusing on the university-greater society relation today.



I'm unsure why this is considered a problem.

There's an oversupply of humanities graduates in the system.

Perhaps for the sake of equality in graduates between the 'sciences' and the 'arts', that would work in the short-term; I was unaware of this oversupply.

The problem would still remain though, in that a general consensus that not having strict mathematics and scientific practices in whatever stuff, means it is worth less. Personally I really like maths and sciences but it does not make me think of other things as "wishy-washy" or "too fuzzy to use properly for anything useful". This would count as part of what I see as an excess of pragmatism, or pragmatism going too far.

[Vlerchan]

I was going to say you were sneaky in trans-thread quoting, but I won't be so mean.
I didn't feel it was right to head off on a (Or: another of my) irrelevant tangent(s) in the nihilism thread. Especially as there's already multiple issues being discussed there.

In my defence, anyways.

I meant that the function universities are playing feels to be approaching another stage in eventually having a career that is seen as more useful when being productive for the economy.
I a. not seeing the exact issue, and b. would also appreciate an example.

Perhaps for the sake of equality in graduates between the 'sciences' and the 'arts', that would work in the short-term[.]
I don't see the point in equivocating things if they're not equal.

It will only distort signalling and incentives, which makes it less clear what the optimal choice is for students, which in the long-run, on average, should leave them worse off.

The problem would still remain though, in that a general consensus that not having strict mathematics and scientific practices in whatever stuff, means it is worth less.
The reason mathematical rigour is desirable is that forces people to outline their presumptions, and then demonstrate the steps needed to reach a conclusion. The main problem with the humanities is that it's full of loaded presumptions, in a lot of cases built on bias, that result in loaded conclusions.

The empirical method is valuable for the same reason.

[sqishy]

I didn't feel it was right to head off on a (Or: another of my) irrelevant tangent(s) in the nihilism thread. Especially as there's already multiple issues being discussed there.

In my defence, anyways.

I get that.


I a. not seeing the exact issue, and b. would also appreciate an example.

a. is problematic for me to explain further if I have not already.

b: ECTS, quantifying aspects of a course to compare every course with others in an education framework. This goes with the NFQ. Yes, a great attempt at making some common ground between stuff, but also gives greater temptation to evaluate a course through its NFQ and/or ECTS numbers. Paperwork.


I don't see the point in equivocating things if they're not equal.

I was wrong in thinking you were with the equivocation, so we can throw it out then.



It will only distort signalling and incentives, which makes it less clear what the optimal choice is for students, which in the long-run, on average, should leave them worse off.

Economic motivations for choosing the sciences over the arts, yes. The arts are seen as less valuable through their lower 'pragmatic factor' when it comes to the economical aspect of it.



The reason mathematical rigour is desirable is that forces people to outline their presumptions, and then demonstrate the steps needed to reach a conclusion.

Mathematics is extremely powerful for this, but its precision carries with it the drawback of having a smaller 'viewing angles' on things. Humanities/arts have a greater viewing angle that is more fluid with stuff that gives it a level of being able to not be slow and rigid sometimes, though emotion is something you need to recognise and control sometimes through your viewpoints.

ROTW wouldn't be the way it is if we all took sciences courses, especially the ones with more mathematics in it. The antitheist distinction would probably ironically not even be thought about - there is so much more emotion behind some viewpoints like scientism and physicalism than the people in them talk about. UFOs wouldn't be so controversial if this were not the case, is the empirical method were done on its own.
Who cares about stuff that ignores the plain facts and physics? (An example).




The main problem with the humanities is that it's full of loaded presumptions, in a lot of cases built on bias, that result in loaded conclusions.

I don't like it when emotion make up the majority of what should not be emotional - a side example would be political debates that tend to be more of a field trip for rhetoric than laying out the arguments themselves. That is the drawback for the humanities, I don't want to be or look like an academic, by the way.


The empirical method is valuable for the same reason.

I'm taking the reason to be with the mathematics. You remove the capacities for being emotional, because numbers/etc don't do that, yes. Can we do any of these discussions with only the scientific method, mathematics and pure logic?

You cannot have the sciences without humanities and vice-versa in some form, if we're talking about the qualities of them.

I don't like one of the sides in this polar sciences/arts view of education, thinking they are better than the other. We can use your incommensurability here.

- - - - - - - -

I'm having the impression that you're on DEFCON 1 against my views (hopefully I'm reading your subtle differences in response right) and I don't have the motivation to defend each inch I got, so I surrender - that's the best excuse I have. Your persistence is well-known.

It's much more difficult when the very examples one shows to defend their viewpoint, are what the other sees as weakening that viewpoint.

(My last defence is that you dragged me back into this thread- IT'S A TRAP!)

[Vlerchan]

ECTS, quantifying aspects of a course to compare every course with others in an education framework.
This quantifiers nothing more than the amount of study attached to a course. I might agree if the comparison was qualitative, but this measure requires a clear equivocation of coursework. It's there to ensure that when I claim I have a degree, it's understood what that means.

That the NFQ is also being references indicates to me that the distaste is for formality and not corporatisation.

Economic motivations for choosing the sciences over the arts, yes. The arts are seen as less valuable through their lower 'pragmatic factor' when it comes to the economical aspect of it.
Economics is but a small component. Other social and educational gains should also be factored in, of which an honest description of course content should indicate.

I just tend to discuss all issues of incentives in the same manner being an economics undergraduate, perhaps.

[...] but its precision carries with it the drawback of having a smaller 'viewing angles' on things.
I can agree to this to an extent. Nonetheless whilst a at first taking aim at things through a broad scope might at first be advisable - dissecting the discovered-parts through the lens of a rigorous logic should be the aim after the initial discovery is concluded.

Nonetheless, I'm not claiming that the methodologies in the humanities are useless. You are correct in asserting that the scientific approach is inapplicable to some topics. But, still, I feel the manner in which the humanities has developed (with, for example, the proliferation of x-studies courses) has undermined the field in the view of practitioners that might have been allies.

I don't like one of the sides in this polar sciences/arts view of education, thinking they are better than the other.
I feel I should emphasise that I don't feel the humanities are useless. Law is a humanity and I feel I'd be a quite different person had I not taken it.

Education in the humanities, of the broad ideas that are fundamental to our humanity, build men, as opposed to mere machines, as a singular education in the sciences and logic might. Nonetheless, advanced studies should be restricted to a much smaller, more productive, concentration of our population, to reduce the noise and abuse that currently is it's almost-singular output.

I'm having the impression that you're on DEFCON 1 against my views (hopefully I'm reading your subtle differences in response right) and I don't have the motivation to defend each inch I got, so I surrender - that's the best excuse I have. Your persistence is well-known.

It's much more difficult when the very examples one shows to defend their viewpoint, are what the other sees as weakening that viewpoint.
I'm actually not gone DEFCON 1. In fact in this thread I'm only ever looking for a constructive conversation on where education should be heading. However I will admit I have been posing points in more provocative terms than normal to attract discussion.

(Though I find the corporatisation point somewhat bizarre still.)

[sqishy]

This quantifiers nothing more than the amount of study attached to a course. I might agree if the comparison was qualitative, but this measure requires a clear equivocation of coursework. It's there to ensure that when I claim I have a degree, it's understood what that means.

What do you mean by it being qualitative?


That the NFQ is also being references indicates to me that the distaste is for formality and not corporatisation.

Formality gone to far that feels dry, but also feels like excess/sheer quantisation for occupations. Bigger numbers look nicer on CVs.

[/QUOTE]
Economics is but a small component. Other social and educational gains should also be factored in, of which an honest description of course content should indicate.

I just tend to discuss all issues of incentives in the same manner being an economics undergraduate, perhaps.[/QUOTE]

Motivation for courses would be better influenced by many factors, yes.

I don't mind your thorough economic angle - someone has to be the expert in ROTW :D .


I can agree to this to an extent. Nonetheless whilst a at first taking aim at things through a broad scope might at first be advisable - dissecting the discovered-parts through the lens of a rigorous logic should be the aim after the initial discovery is concluded.

I feel that having them 'alternate' in some way as to have general starting views before going into the specifics, and 'scaling back' as it were if the task failed, if you get me.

Then again, we've got so many ways to have them interact with each other, so I'm not against your suggestion.



Nonetheless, I'm not claiming that the methodologies in the humanities are useless. You are correct in asserting that the scientific approach is inapplicable to some topics. But, still, I feel the manner in which the humanities has developed (with, for example, the proliferation of x-studies courses) has undermined the field in the view of practitioners that might have been allies.

So you're saying that the humanities have a much bigger problem with 'internal conflict' across disciplines in them, than in the sciences?



I feel I should emphasise that I don't feel the humanities are useless. Law is a humanity and I feel I'd be a quite different person had I not taken it.

Education in the humanities, of the broad ideas that are fundamental to our humanity, build men, as opposed to mere machines, as a singular education in the sciences and logic might. Nonetheless, advanced studies should be restricted to a much smaller, more productive, concentration of our population, to reduce the noise and abuse that currently is it's almost-singular output.

Advancement should be within certain specifics, yes, I agree.



I'm actually not gone DEFCON 1. In fact in this thread I'm only ever looking for a constructive conversation on where education should be heading. However I will admit I have been posing points in more provocative terms than normal to attract discussion.

Alright. (Perhaps DEFCON 3? :P .)


(Though I find the corporatisation point somewhat bizarre still.)

It's not corporatisation as such but more excessive leaning on the primarily future-directed quantification of seeing how this certain route in life now will help add up numbers for your later on, like a sort of dryness. It feels more rigid than it needs be.

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean by it being qualitative?
ECTS is a mere quantification of the number of hours of education associated with a certain module.

It's not qualitative data insofar as it indicates nothing about the subject other than mere quantifications.

Formality gone to far that feels dry, but also feels like excess/sheer quantisation for occupations. Bigger numbers look nicer on CVs.
The scaling in the ECTS has nothing to do with beefing up one's CV. There is a minimum number of hours of education expected of those participating in a bachelors to have undertaken - the ECTS is a record of the number of hours. It - in short - defines what a college course entails for the purpose of accreditation.

The NFQ just relates different levels of education to each other. It assigns a scale to each advance in education so the process is simplified for the employer. Of course a level 10 (a PhD) looks better on one's CV than a level 5 (the leaving certificate): but that's clear before we introduce the system.

In other words both considerably reduce the amount of uncertainty for candidates, where education presents a signal, and before their introduction we considered the information as provided valuable, anyways.

I don't mind your thorough economic angle - someone has to be the expert in ROTW.
I'm flattered but I'm no expert. I don't feel I really register as anything above a layperson.

I feel that having them 'alternate' in some way as to have general starting views before going into the specifics, and 'scaling back' as it were if the task failed, if you get me.
I don't think I do, would yopu be able to put it int different words?

The point I'm making is that intuition is fine for examining the whole, but the parts should be subject to rigour.

So you're saying that the humanities have a much bigger problem with 'internal conflict' across disciplines in them, than in the sciences?
I'm claiming that the humanities have a much harder time having their research respected because most outside question to methodological underpinnings. This is unlike work in the natural sciences, or the more rigorous social sciences.

This twitter feed (https://twitter.com/real_peerreview) is one of a number of online hubs that mock academic humanities research, and I've seen it linked numerous times by academics within the social sciences.

It's not corporatisation as such but more excessive leaning on the primarily future-directed quantification of seeing how this certain route in life now will help add up numbers for your later on, like a sort of dryness. It feels more rigid than it needs be.
It's a remark on the accreditation of education within universities, for the purpose of applications for jobs or higher education. Of course it's future-directed.

It also needs to be rigid because it's primary focus is in reducing uncertainty for key decision-makers in the future.

[sqishy]

ECTS is a mere quantification of the number of hours of education associated with a certain module.

It's not qualitative data insofar as it indicates nothing about the subject other than mere quantifications.


The scaling in the ECTS has nothing to do with beefing up one's CV. There is a minimum number of hours of education expected of those participating in a bachelors to have undertaken - the ECTS is a record of the number of hours. It - in short - defines what a college course entails for the purpose of accreditation.

The NFQ just relates different levels of education to each other. It assigns a scale to each advance in education so the process is simplified for the employer. Of course a level 10 (a PhD) looks better on one's CV than a level 5 (the leaving certificate): but that's clear before we introduce the system.

In other words both considerably reduce the amount of uncertainty for candidates, where education presents a signal, and before their introduction we considered the information as provided valuable, anyways.

I'm aware of the formal/official reasoning behind it all.



I'm flattered but I'm no expert. I don't feel I really register as anything above a layperson.

Your quantity and quality of presence here strongly suggests otherwise!

[/QUOTE]
I don't think I do, would yopu be able to put it int different words?

The point I'm making is that intuition is fine for examining the whole, but the parts should be subject to rigour.[/QUOTE]

I suggest that there are many ways strict/'non-strict' logic (fluid/structured thinking) can be used with each other; one would be that strict logic navigates areas that fluid logic defines as a whole. Looking back at what I said before and this, it's not a big point, just a suggestion.



I'm claiming that the humanities have a much harder time having their research respected because most outside question to methodological underpinnings. This is unlike work in the natural sciences, or the more rigorous social sciences.

This twitter feed (https://twitter.com/real_peerreview) is one of a number of online hubs that mock academic humanities research, and I've seen it linked numerous times by academics within the social sciences.

Well I agree with that.



It's a remark on the accreditation of education within universities, for the purpose of applications for jobs or higher education. Of course it's future-directed.

It also needs to be rigid because it's primary focus is in reducing uncertainty for key decision-makers in the future.

I am not criticising the presence of future-directed goals, I am saying that it looks more to be more that than the other aspect of the doing of the learning itself. People would find it strange that someone with the money would go do a course in uni without motivation for an occupation afterward that requires material in that course. I've been met occasionally with people that ask me what sort of job am I meant to get with a philosophy degree, immediately after I say I am doing a philosophy course. "So you're going for a degree in university, but what is it for?"

[Vlerchan]

[...] one would be that strict logic navigates areas that fluid logic defines as a whole. Looking back at what I said before and this, it's not a big point, just a suggestion.
I can more-or-less agree here. The point of mine might be easier made, when I claim that the humanities spend too much time drenched in the fluid-logic.

I am not criticising the presence of future-directed goals, I am saying that it looks more to be more that than the other aspect of the doing of the learning itself.
I don't have much of an issue with this, if I'm honest. The niche of a university is in accreditation. Education itself is possible through self-direction [this forum is full of auto-didacts], and so the price paid is primarily orientated towards sitting the exams to attain the degree.

That's the reason I feel there should be more straight-accreditation courses, where one can just take a set of exams, or submit a number of assignments over the course of a couple of months.

This doesn't mean I don't think people should aim to get educated in universities, and I for sure don't think people should option for courses that provide better job opportunities ahead of what they enjoy, but rather that the aim of university should be to be accredited.

---

I will add that this doesn't hold for PhDs. There, the role should be to attain an education, and a decision to pursue one should be education- as opposed to accreditation-orientated. But, considering the number of bachelors degrees printed per annum, and with the same consideration increasingly made for masters degrees, it seems suboptimal to me, to be an education-orientated candidate for either of these.

---

People would find it strange that someone with the money would go do a course in uni without motivation for an occupation afterward that requires material in that course.

Will: See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: [smiles] Yeah, maybe. But at least I won't be unoriginal. (https://youtu.be/azM6xSTT2I0?t=77)

[sqishy]

I can more-or-less agree here. The point of mine might be easier made, when I claim that the humanities spend too much time drenched in the fluid-logic.

Going too far either way doesn't do much good, yes.

[I see my slushy typo typing there]


I don't have much of an issue with this, if I'm honest. The niche of a university is in accreditation. Education itself is possible through self-direction [this forum is full of auto-didacts], and so the price paid is primarily orientated towards sitting the exams to attain the degree.

Fundamentally this looks to be what it is, yes.



That's the reason I feel there should be more straight-accreditation courses, where one can just take a set of exams, or submit a number of assignments over the course of a couple of months.

Well I wish I could have done that with the entirety of secondary school!
That condenses the present functionality right down, yes.



This doesn't mean I don't think people should aim to get educated in universities, and I for sure don't think people should option for courses that provide better job opportunities ahead of what they enjoy, but rather that the aim of university should be to be accredited.

What would be the purpose for the accreditation? (asking for sake of clarity)


I will add that this doesn't hold for PhDs. There, the role should be to attain an education, and a decision to pursue one should be education- as opposed to accreditation-orientated. But, considering the number of bachelors degrees printed per annum, and with the same consideration increasingly made for masters degrees, it seems suboptimal to me, to be an education-orientated candidate for either of these.

Educations courses 'below' PhDs do have a sense of lack of finality and personal journeying with regard to just education, yes.

Perhaps my point overall is that my 'ideal' view of universities would be institutions that provide education but also with certain services that allow oneself to learn things that either cannot be done outside the university in society 'at large', or can be done but with great difficulty. The main financial cost here (in whatever way it manifests itself) is that these services are simply hard to get.

I'll use a crude analogy that universities and their teachers/professors/etc are for education what gyms/related and associated staff are for physical exercise - they provide specialised services that allow people to do much more easily what others can do but with greater difficulty.

A side effect of this is that universities are certainly opportune places to go to for attaining qualifications/etc that a certain occupation requires, because of the specialised services offered. This is partly what is meant by 'great difficulty' - I can know all I want about quantum physics, but I can only do so much without having particle accelerators and related technology at hand to go further (which is the case for learning for the sake of it and/or for having better chances at getting a certain occupation).

So the issue I got overall is that the future-oriented-for-occupations aspect of university is getting increased emphasis and attention over the primary 'specialised services' aspect of university.



Will: See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: [smiles] Yeah, maybe. But at least I won't be unoriginal. (https://youtu.be/azM6xSTT2I0?t=77)

I like it!

[Judean Zealot]

Probably, I replied, that would be the better way; and when I hear you say this,
I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures
among us which are adapted to different occupations.

Very true.

And will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations,
or when he has only one?

When he has only one.

Plato The Republic pp. 222 (http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf)

I presume I'm correct in interpreting this as desiring a division and specialisation of labour.

Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen [iron and brass].

ibid: 271 - 272

I presume Socrates would not have desired that those of Iron- and Brass-souls be educated in the same manner of the Warrior-Guardians and Philosopher-Kings. Their role was orientated towards the purely function supply of needs. Thus, one would presume that the majority of the education supplied would be principally vocational.

In Plato's Republic, the man who lacked the requisite education (education here being used in contrast to vocational training) would have no say in political matters. That model is currently unfeasible. In addition, Plato would not disagree that were the craftsman able to both learn his trade and that of a citizen, the Republic ought to utilise its resources towards the production of more citizens. I feel that in our current age we have sufficient resources and intellectual capital to provide most of our citizens with the necessary tools for them to be qualified for participation in state affairs.

In a sense, the upper echelons of higher-education has become the arena in which we separate the gold from the silver. That is, it's in pursuit of a PhD where one's true nature is revealed. I realise this runs into the original critique, that universities have become mere reflections of the vulgarities that surround them. But, I raise that question, as to what is the source of this within universities: if not the emitter, then the reflector.

The answer, is the humanities, and this also explains it's decline as an option for younger people. It's research agenda, and not just the content but also the methodological underpinnings, has led to it's more-or-less entire discreditation amongst the educated classes. What occurred, mass education* opened it up and given the much lower barriers to entry as far as involvement is concerned**, it could absorb the weak and incompetent. Furthermore, discussion proliferated amongst intelligent lay-people, such as myself, where it was possible to discuss big ideas without requirement to first understand the technical foundations underpinning link in other disciplines, and this only diluted it's impression to the public further***.

The bad drove out the good, and we're left with the current mess.

I fully agree with this.

* Which professed that all were capable of it and thus standards have been diluted to such an extent that it barely offers a signalling effect of ability. I'm looking like I might graduate with a Bachelors without ever coming across a new idea (outside of law).

The dilution doesn't necessarily follow from the assertion that most are capable. The establishment of higher and lower educational tiers can separate the precocious from the dense.

** In economics, for example, there is a much higher standard set in terms of the technical rigour required. This is also through for the physical and mathematical sciences, and increasingly so for the social sciences (ex. anthropology). You might even notice this in the trends of this discussion on virtual-teen, the more popular topics are the ones with the much lower barriers of entry.


As I've mentioned, the less qualified need not be involved in the discourse of the researchers.


Being quite honest, the disciplines in these times were in a far more rudimentary state than they persist currently. That it's impressive for the likes of economists such as Acemoglu (https://ideas.repec.org/e/pac16.html) to be publishing across sub-disciplines should indicate the considerable depth of learning that is required to remain at the horizon of a given field.

I have no issue at all with academic specialisation.

Specialisation in professional research in no way precludes being an educated layperson in other disciplines. On the contrary, knowledge of other disciplines allows one to realise the bounds of his own research, as well as to appreciate the finds of those other disciplines.


The point I argued in this thread was that the role of university is to signal one's natural proficiency (comparative advantage) in a given field. The internet might be seen as successfully displacing the university as a centre of intelligent discourse, as is clear to me from centres such as virtual-teen.


As I've said, it's a tremendous waste of resources.

[Xiao.Z]

I not think college should just be about get degree for well compensate employ. I think should go for get employ that can be enjoy and fulfill. If I go not worry about get job for get wealth. Just desire happy life of fulfill. But hate school so maybe not try college.

[Porpoise101]

I not think college should just be about get degree for well compensate employ. I think should go for get employ that can be enjoy and fulfill. If I go not worry about get job for get wealth. Just desire happy life of fulfill. But hate school so maybe not try college.
Maybe you hate your school. Maybe going to college would be better than high school because you will be away from the people you don't like. You will never know if you never go.

[Xiao.Z]

Maybe you hate your school. Maybe going to college would be better than high school because you will be away from the people you don't like. You will never know if you never go.

I consider but plan to enlist military after high school. Maybe change mind before. Much time decide.

[Vlerchan]

Exams. Sorry for taking so long to get back.

That model is currently unfeasible.
I agree, this is certainly true.

In addition, Plato would not disagree that were the craftsman able to both learn his trade and that of a citizen, the Republic ought to utilise its resources towards the production of more citizens.
I question where one that at the same time devotes themselves to a vocation can be seen as, ultimately, of the same character a citizen. Her allegiances will be divided between of communal-interest and her own sectional-interests - her livelihood.

I have no issue with this, as I've stated before: I view specialisation in this regards as desirable, but I feel it's a point worth your own consideration.

I feel that in our current age we have sufficient resources and intellectual capital to provide most of our citizens with the necessary tools for them to be qualified for participation in state affairs.
I have no issue with providing the necessary tools to those that desire to learn. What I feel, though, is that on reaching adulthood, there is quite severe diminishing returns in forcing learning*, especially where it distracts from specialisation on their vocation.

I guess I should add that I am unsure whether it is civics, or the character that prompts one into the study of civics, that poses positive externalities. I would much prefer living in a community of individuals learn in civics, though I have a feeling that it's more ones love for knowledge than their knowledge in itself that is desirable here.

So, when one suggests an emphasis on civics into adulthood, when there personality has broadly formed, I feel that at this stage we've already failed.

---

* I expect 13 year olds to be able to tell me who Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are, though. I still expect a strong standard be promoted in the earlier years, until adulthood.

The dilution doesn't necessarily follow from the assertion that most are capable. The establishment of higher and lower educational tiers can separate the precocious from the dense.
On the first point, I agree. I was certainty too loose with my words.

On the second I agree this should be the case. Unfortunately, for a few reasons, it's difficult to ensure.

As I've mentioned, the less qualified need not be involved in the discourse of the researchers.
The issue I'm raising isn't that laypeople mingle with researchers.

The issue is the ignorance that dominates popular discourse is much more visible, and mass discourse tends to surround certain fields more than others. This results in a loss of prestige in that subject - as people then choose to be rationally ignorant. This also isn't me raising an issue, as I figure that popular conversation on subjects is important, as much as I'm raising a positive point: that one might be able to associate the dearth of intellect in some of these conversations with the fall in the prestige of fields.

Specialisation in professional research in no way precludes being an educated layperson in other disciplines. On the contrary, knowledge of other disciplines allows one to realise the bounds of his own research, as well as to appreciate the finds of those other disciplines.
Question, what do you believe is causing disengagement from other disciplines?

I should add that most academics commit to hyperspecialisation in their research, and the output across an entire field can be incredibly difficult to keep track of. Though, I will add that, at least the academics I have interacted with, seemed to have a reasonable knowledge of tangential subjects as I have.

I understand the type you're probably referring to, though (pop-cosmologists come to mind).

As I've said, it's a tremendous waste of resources.
I understand how you might consider it an underutilisation of resources, as I do myself.

Nonetheless, the minimum function that I see for a university is in transmitting important information about candidate-quality. It's contribution to society otherwise is a side-effect of competitive matching within.

[Tim987]

I personally will not be planning to go to collage because i want to make my own blacksmithing/knofe making/prop making company. This might need a tafe course to learn how to start and run my own company however. Higher education is a signal yes and it shows that you have some conpetence in the job you are being hired for otherwise you could just be some random that has absolulty no idea

[Professional Russian]

very. and before you say anything hear me out. i wadnt gonna go to college. i said fuck it ill be a pipeliner all my life making that big money without college. well with how shits looking i decided to go to college because itll open alot more doors for jobs and life and shit.