Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. University is primarily about getting a degree to put on your resume. I can't think of anyone I've ever met who cared about what they actually learned in school, only that they got a piece of paper at the end.

View on HN

I feel bad for people who've had that experience. I learned a lot of valuable, practical information and skills in my time at engineering school.

I'm currently working as a web developer, partly so I can afford to go back to university! I didn't have the discipline/maturity to pass the first time, and now I don't qualify for student loans anymore. I'm genuinely interested in the material, and want to get a solid footing in every major part of the field.

I just really like computer science, and if I didn't have to work for money, I'd probably spend a substantial portion of my energy learning and playing around with it.

(You're probably right about the average person though: most of my ex-classmates don't care much for computer science, they just wanted well paying jobs—or else didn't know what else to do and went, "Well, I guess I'm good at computers, so...")

I'm not very good at formal education though, so my approach is basically to learn everything before I go back to university, via https://teachyourselfcs.com/

Though at that point I question the value of the actual university, especially as the ones I've been to do not really teach the things I'm interested in, let alone in the way that suits me... heck, even MIT (my benchmark for "a good university") dropped SICP! So I might just get one of those online degrees instead.

If teaching yourself everything before going to university seems odd, consider that university expects you to self-teach anyway -- the university just provides the external motivation (you paid a lot of money and people will judge you if you fail), along with its own complications (poorly designed/scheduled courses, depressingly unmotivated classmates/project partners, sleep-inducing (and sometimes) mandatory lectures).

IMO, that's generally correct but not universally correct. The vast majority of programmers are gluing together pre-built libraries, frameworks, tools and so forth and so really don't need much of a degree. However, the people who are creating those libraries, frameworks, tools, compilers, operating systems need, not necessarily a degree (e.g. John Carmack), but mastery of the knowledge provided by a degree to build those things. That's not to suggest one group is "better" than the other or some other value judgement; it's just an observation of trends.

Much like any other tool or instrument, a degree is invaluable if you have something in mind to use it for. If not, sure, it's just 4 years of trivia but it's pretty clear that's not the fault of the degree.

You need to meet more people. Or ask more questions.

In my university, I learned about voltage timing in mosfets using oscilliscopes and programmed ASICS. Really cool stuff! I also took acting and foreign language classes, and even joined a sailing club.

It saddens me when people don't value a well-rounded education. I find curiosity and learning to be a fantastic thing for all of life.

You can take an acting class or a foreign language class without being enrolled in a research institution.

Product tying is often portrayed as immoral, it is even illegal in many places. Why we force a major part of our society to go through a practice that is similar in many ways but is far more expensive is beyond my understanding.

None of what you learned needs to be coupled with a university as it now exists to learn. And in fact, all of those have been and are possible outside of the university.

My statement was not regarding exclusivity to university, but a rebuttal to the parent comment (re: who cares about what they learned other than the piece of paper?).

I doubt very many people would be willing to pay out the nose for the education if it didn't come with that piece of paper at the end. Sure, we may value some things along the way, but what matters is the piece of paper.

When you look at it to get a scientific education you are right. When you try to grow as a human in humanitarian way, then university social life is also important (maybe not the over-the-edge US college way but for the rest of the world that is definitely a thing). You grow in that time also as a person. When you just earn money and be part of a company you will not grow your social behavior or other skills. That is also the reason why CS degrees have often random other areas included as soft skills like literature etc.

> University is primarily about getting a degree to put on your resume.

If this were true, college giving programs wouldn't get funded. Here's how college giving works:

1. call up an alum

2. remind them what a great time they had during college

3. ask them if they would like a future student to have that kind of experience

4. take down the credit card number for a donation, because that's all it takes to get the wallets to open.

If college were really a credential mill, reminding people of their time in college wouldn't inspire them to open their wallets to give us money for nothing in return.

This is just not the case im afraid

Sounds like this person isn't hanging out with the right people.

what? I'm sorry you had such a crappy college experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com