Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I said in another thread around here, "if you're going to get a liberal arts degree, either have enough money to afford it, or be so intensely interested in the liberal arts that you're willing to pay back your damn loans." But really, what I mean by that is a slight bit more direct (yet subtle) than it seems.

It's quite possible that the study of purely academic subjects--subjects which have little chance of improving one's employment prospects--will enrich someone's life tremendously, and that the university is the best place to study some of these subjects. I'm not interested in boring arguments about what those subjects might be, or whether any such subjects may exist, but let's entertain at least the possibility that some do. Isn't lifelong enrichment worth a decade or so of loan payments?

Engineers see the cost of college as a variable in a purely financial cost-benefit analysis, and don't understand why philosophers would even bother because it fails that analysis. But philosophers get something fundamentally different out of college. Is it worth the money? That's a personal question.

I am an engineer. Being five years removed from undergrad, the most valuable parts of college were not electives in mechanics or control theory. They were the professors I interacted with, the football games I attended in the student section, the liberal arts and writing classes I was required to take, and the friends I made.

Really? I never would have learned the math on my own, and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees. I grew up reading for fun though, perhaps that facet of education is harder for some people?

> "and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees."

Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities.

Which isn't to say self-study is worthless, but rather that it is a poor substitute for interaction with your professors. IMHO to claim that liberal arts can be just as well studied by oneself is myopic and tunnel-visioned, and about equivalent to me claiming that aspiring nuclear engineers should pick up some textbooks instead of going to school.

IMHO the whole topic of the monetary worth of schooling is an interesting and worthwhile one - but discussions on it on forums such as this one is invariably tainted by the fact that many people in our field have incredibly arrogant and misguided superiority complexes about technical degrees over the arts. I personally tend to think that one ought to be responsible for their own academic spending, and that studies of the arts is a luxury that not everyone can afford - but I hesitate to voice this often, since many of my engineering peers hold this opinion out of disdain and trivialization of the humanities, and I really don't want to be associated with that kind of ignorance.

>Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities.

My undergrad humanities courses were 100+ students packed into a giant lecture hall listening to a professor talk. There was essentially no interaction.

I've taken those courses also - they are still valuable. Take the same book home, or hell, take ten books home on that subject and you will still miss many salient points that only prolonged formal study of the subject will bring.

That's the trick with the humanities - they are not hard sciences, there is no canonical body of knowledge to be passed on; This isn't a straight download. Many things are a matter of perspective, of experience, and of particular schools of thoughts - all of the above poorly communicated via mere books.

That's the difference between a history book vs. a good history professor. Even without the (invaluable) ability to interact directly, it's the difference between a dry recounting of facts vs. more profound linkages into other areas of the field, or entirely other fields of study altogether. Sure, by reading books you will make some of these connections yourself, but it's hardly as good as what you'd get in classes.

That being said, there are certainly bad profs who do just do the dry recounting of facts, in which case you are basically better off reading the textbook at home. The presence of these should in no way discount the enormous positive influence of college educations done right.

How is going to a lecture with no interaction different from taking a transcript of the lecture and binding it in a book?

It's not, but you have to go to the lecture to get the transcript, right? The professor may be saying things that don't appear in any book. This is especially so if you're going to a good school and the professor is a leading researcher in his field.

As someone with a philosophy degree I can say that your thought is immeasurably underestimated. Every philosophy 101 course teaches you Plato, but the differene between the Plato you find there and the actual Plato under scholarly anaylsis is immense. Aristotle is even worse: his Attic Greek has almost nothing to do with his common English translation EDIT: when it comes to the key terms.

>Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities.

Also, if you're really interested in a subject, talking with an expert is fun. You're really missing out on the good stuff if you keep to yourself and your books. I think this goes equally for the arts and the sciences.

There's a big difference between reading philosophy and understanding it. Understanding philosophy requires some understanding of translation issues, historical knowledge of which philosophers are replying to whom, and (especially in analytic philosophy) a working knowledge of the technical jargon involved. It's much easier territory to navigate when you have a guide.

In today's culture that's damn hard for a lot of people.

So you joined College just to play football, write essays and make friends? Can't you just make that within your network? (neighbors, clubs, events...)

>Can't you just make that within your network? (neighbors, clubs, events...)

Many of my friends who didn't go to college (or commuted to college) held on to whichever high school friends also stayed behind. They didn't meet many new people or do many new things. While it's theoretically possible to seek out the same level of novelty and excitement college gives you, it's also hard enough that most people won't do it.

I think you just proved his point. What a ridiculous price to pay for the benefit of networking, especially today with this internet thing.

did you pay for your 'education', or was it your rich parents?

ps, i agree with you, and i didn't pay for most of mine.

IMO the cost analysis of college (beside personal preference) is largely a function of parent income. In the US, if your family is poor to "middle income" your decision tree is 1. get into a top 5/10 (at least by endowment) school 2. get into best public university (preferably in state) you can 3. learn a trade, and by all means avoid anywhere private and expensive (unless you can get a substantial outside scholarship). If your parents are eff you rich, then eff the cost. The weird bit is the area between middle income and eff you rich where financial aid is less available and it becomes more expensive to go pretty much everywhere. In that sense college expenses are a strange way of equalizing quality of life between the upper middle and the <middle

OK. 50 or 60 percent of U.S. high school graduates in 2009 went directly to college. What percentage of those do you think are studying academic subjects because they feel the subjects are "enriching their life"? 20%? 10%? 5%? 2%?

The American 18-year-old is not a demographic in which you find many philosophers.

I think you'd be surprised.

Maybe it's the company I keep, or the college I go to, but hell if not at least 90% of the kids who go here think they're "enriching their lives".

No. I am a grad student teaching first-year calculus. 90% are getting a chance to party and maybe 10% are the idealists.

These numbers may be self-selecting by the schools both you go to...

Or because one is based on how people present themselves, and one is based on how people approach their studies.

I'm not sure how you can tell. It's easy to form opinions like this about undergraduates that you're teaching, but in practice they're based on virtually nothing. You don't know these people, you just interact with them in a very restricted way for a few hours a week. (And you spend hardly any time at all with them on a one-to-one basis.) At least, that's how I fell when I'm teaching.

I don't think first-years are a fair assessment of any institution. Many of the original 90% partiers will either a) shape up, b) drop out of college or c) some other choice. Good luck -- my friend is also a grad student teaching first-year calculus for "business, social sciences and humanities" .. ie kids that aren't interested in math. In his words, "it's painful".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com