Hacker News Reader

Comment by byrneseyeview | Hacker News Reader

Does Khan Academy also provide an atmosphere where students can study, party, hook up, make mistakes, and otherwise learn how to become members of society?

You know what provides that atmosphere? New York. Or SF. Or Boston, Seattle, Austin--pretty much any city. I did not miss out on those opportunities from dropping out. The difference was that I was in the real world that colleges theoretically prepare you for: no RAs, no meal plans, fewer second chances, etc. I don't know why a fake version of the real world is a better preparation for the real world that the real real world.

There was one other difference: not going to school is far, far cheaper. And you have enough free time to defray even that minimal cost by working.

View on HN

"fewer second chances"

I have to vigorously disagree with the assertion that the real world offers fewer second chances. In fact, it's the other way around, the real world (i.e. marketplace) offers as many chances as you can create.

It's the rigidity of academia that closes off chances for a lot of people who don't fit the predefined molds (categorization by major, standardized pedagogical technique (the lecture), and on and on). Additionally, academia is often a zero sum game (because of grading on a curve).

You might not like his politics, but former Vice President Cheney's auotbiography shows how many second chances the real world provides.

> I don't know why a fake version of the real world is a better preparation for the real world that the real real world.

Right! I don't know why doctors have to practice on cadavers. Stick a scalpel in their hand and let them operate!

You first.

Yes, and this practice, in addition to their further clinicals is called an apprenticeship. To pass the medical boards - just stick a pencil in their hand ;-) if they prepared adequately - they'll pass...

Me first, indeed. That's what I did; it works.

That's also a completely different argument from the one I was addressing. It sounds like your version is that 18 to 22-year-olds are too dangerous to be unleashed on society (the person getting the "operation" in your analogy), so we need to send them to school to keep them out of trouble.

But I don't understand why school is a better alternative than the job market.

My goodness. This type of thinking is going to shackle you from ever doing something new and untried.

That's the most important lesson you don't learn in college: how to do something completely novel. And it's the most important lesson one can ever learn.

You know what provides that atmosphere? New York. Or SF. Or Boston, Seattle, Austin--pretty much any city.

Ignoring that many people don't live near large cities like these, how should a 17-year old support themselves? What would they do instead of going to school? Waiting tables isn't scalable--there aren't enough restaurants.

There actually probably are enough restaurants to cover it in NYC and SF.

Apparently you've never seen the 100 desperate people who line up to drop off their resumes when a restaurant in San Francisco is actually hiring?

If people are willing to move for college they should be willing to move for "uncollege" (and people who aren't willing to move are in trouble; see Detroit). Likewise, borrowing ~$12K/year for living expenses should be less burdensome than borrowing ~$40K/year for college.

(Although I don't think those particular objections are valid, I'm still not in favor of the "uncollege" concept.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com