So you're considering a liberal arts degree
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
I knew from the beginning that you can't pick just any major unless you wanted a deep, abiding knowledge of that concentration and/or had a natural inclination or aptitude for it. The "losers" making your coffee as you go to your programming job? They were always going to end up there, just like I read in forums how programmers in flyover states in the US Midwest have been out of work for over 99 weeks or what have you.
Ultimately, it matters less what you major in. If you're motivated and talented. you'll find a satisfying, relatively well-paying job; if you were amotivated and/or did poorly in college, wake up and make them lattes.
Sure, even the mediocre computer science major can get work, but you think they'd survive in Silicon Valley? Just like you can't write off every English major as a coffee whipper-upper, you can't automatically say a computer science degree is a path to a six-figure salary.
[1]http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Senior+Technical+Writer&...
It's also worth noting that technical subjects are every bit as easy as the arts to learn from the library and Wikipedia. Easier, in fact. So really there's no degree that isn't a waste of time unless your job specifically requires it.
That's what I am trying to say in another thread here. You picked a major, now pick a job which is backed up by it, or augment your education on your own and grab the job you want. One can't just claim "education is more than training for jobs", "I am well rounded" and grab a totally unrelated job.
HN in general is a pretty specialized group of people that skews heavily towards engineering and technical jobs. And those aren't the other jobs out there.
Just as the GP could have been a journalist, copywriter, etc... they just as easily could have been a doctor, or a lawyer, or gotten an MBA.
No, he/she really couldn't have. You just listed two heavily regulated professions where not having the right degree means complete disqualification from holding a job. There is no way for GP to be a doctor or a lawyer without going to medical school, or law school, respectively.
At least here in the tech industry you're not legally mandated to have the right degree for the job.
This seems to support the notion that one ought to look at a degree's employment ramifications before jumping into one.
I happened to study biochemistry, which was somewhat useful. I purposefully didn't major in CS, because the department wasn't very strong - I could learn more on my own projects (I minored in it). My wife went to a different school, but she studied French (including literature). She's now a doctor, which is a fairly useful career.
Your major doesn't restrict what you can do later in life.
If you're wealthy enough or you already have earning power enough that you can decide to pursue a degree or advanced education in something that will not help you earn a living then more power to you, but I suspect that that is a very minor fraction of the population.
However, he should realise that not every country's education system is messed up as in the US; take a look at places like Germany, Australia, etc., where you can get a good education (broad or narrow) for comparatively little.
You can earn money to make up for whatever you paid into college, but you can never get that time back.
If going to school isn't going to help you earn more, then why focus on it full time? You could do continuing studies throughout your life to broaden your horizons, and focus your youthful studies on apprenticeship, internship, networking or a major that will actually help you earn more.
Seems like time well spent.
I wouldn't go into crushing debt for it, but if the only outlay was time, sign me the hell up.
> "If going to school isn't going to help you earn more, then why focus on it full time?"
Because life isn't just about money.
> "You could do continuing studies throughout your life to broaden your horizons"
Because juggling full-time work with part-time studies is very, very difficult, and inevitably involves compromises in both. Because some subjects require tremendous time commitment to master.
> "and focus your youthful studies on apprenticeship, internship, networking or a major that will actually help you earn more."
But why? I already earn plenty. If I can take a break from work and pursue a something that I feel makes me a better person, without going into debt for it... why wouldn't I?
I'm not particularly old, but if there's one thing I've learned by observing older folk, is that using earning power as your core optimization metric is a really fast path to a wasted, unhappy life.
Why would you want to? Four years spent learning about things you care about seems like a pretty good use of ages 18-22.
I'd put it the other way: sure, if you start your career at age 18, you might earn more (depends on a lot of factors), but the money you earn will never let you buy that time back.
That's a terribly sad way of going through life.
What, precisely, is the difference? I have heard many a liberal arts major justify their major under this categorization - as if well roundedness was an end in itself. I have heard precisely zero engineers, doctors, lawyers or professionals speak about their degree making them a more "well rounded" person.
Moreover, if taking courses in English makes an engineer more well-rounded, shouldn't the converse apply as well? Why are we programmers forced to take courses in English when English majors aren't forced to take introduction to programming?
I agree that your major doesn't restrict what you can do, but it does restrict what you can do easily. For example, I started out in the Computer Engineering department. If I had graduated as computer engineer, I would have had far more exposure to digital logic design than to programming. However, I graduated with a Computer Science degree. Sure, I could do digital logic design (I know the fundamentals, and can work upwards from there), but I certainly can't do it as easily or as naturally as someone who's spent 4 years studying that field. By the same token, a computer engineer probably wouldn't be as good at coding webapps as I am.
English universities talk at length about the personal development benefits of the university experience, even for people reading maths or sciences or engineering.
One man's opinion: The purpose of a good liberal arts education is to provide the tools to learn about yourself, your place among other men, and your place in the world (qua God, Nature, Not-God, Tao, whatever).
Such studies have the practical, if somewhat removed, benefit of equipping you to understand what you value, and what you should value, and prepare you to explore how to live well. They also have the more obviously and immediately practical benefit of helping you understand how _other_ people think. Done properly, these studies require great rigor and imagination, which is excellent training for all sorts of things.
Those are the Big Questions, and there is so much crap out there speaking to them that you can easily wonder if there is any hope of getting anywhere on them. The liberal arts schools have made the problem worse by their allergic reaction to "judgment" and "objectivity" -- the conceit that all viewpoints are equally valid makes the whole enterprise impossible. All I can tell you is that, just as we shouldn't judge the great programmers by the 98% of the software crap swimming around us, neither should we judge the great liberal teachers by the swamp of babble hiding them.
I have enormous respect for engineers and technical types -- I'm teaching myself to program, and my graduate studies focused on building my quantitative skills. Your complaint that the "broadening" motivation rarely reaches to the mathy stuff is spot-on. I wish I'd studied more math in college. But my studies in philosophy and political science are foundational to everything I think and do.
So, yeah, I share your suspicion of the diffuse and difficult to value. The shame is that the schools themselves haven't better dedicated themselves to something that would be a lot easier to value.
tldr; "those who do not study the workings of their own minds must necessarily be unhappy" -- Aurelius. But the liberal arts schools chickened out of teaching him, so we're left with "well rounded".
All of these typically require a graduate degree (depending on the engineer). How is spending time during undergrad studying the humanities an issue, so long as you have the appropriate prereq's for grad school?
> Why are we programmers forced to take courses in English when English majors aren't forced to take introduction to programming?
At my school non-science majors were required to take a science class or two as an elective, just like I was required to take classes in the humanities. You could still choose what to take, but I'm sure that some chose to take Programming 101.
Only the doctor and the lawyer require graduate degrees. There are millions of engineers, accountants, actuaries, and many more professionals who exist solely with an undergrad degree.
Not everyone is like you.
> "How is spending time during undergrad studying the humanities an issue, so long as you have the appropriate prereq's for grad school?"
The core of this argument is the expense of education. The objection isn't that people are getting liberal arts degrees, it's that they're putting themselves into enormous debt doing so, and coming out without any of the skills that would allow them to pay back said debt.
It isn't helpful that your solution seems to be "get skills to pay back your debt by taking on even more debt for grad school!"
The obvious question at that point is: why not just get said employable skills in undergrad and just skip the six-figure debt load altogether?
Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of liberal arts education, and I think it's something a lot of engineers could stand to have more of. But the idea that people should be going to into ridiculous, crushing debt to get a purely liberal arts degree, while completely ignoring their employability/financial reality, is hogwash.
These days, requiring a bachelor's degree is the equivalent to requiring a high school diploma from a few years ago. Unfortunately, that means that if you want a higher level job, having just a bachelors isn't enough anymore.
>But the idea that people should be going to into ridiculous, crushing debt to get a purely liberal arts degree, while completely ignoring their employability/financial reality, is hogwash.
No one is saying that people should go into crushing debt for a liberal arts degree. Perhaps people should go to a different school, or work during school. But to assume that you can only pay off their school debts with an engineering degree is silly.
They were at Georgia Tech
Up to a point. Few people are able to learn advanced math on their own, and if you pick a major that avoids math classes, you'll be restricted from any job that requires it.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3177169
This isn't an isolated instance, either. I get a lot of this attitude any time I try to apply for jobs. Because I'm not looking to be an actuary or math teacher, my degrees are perceived as "useless" -- even when it comes to applying to programming jobs. (Yes, I can program. Yes, I have some public code to show. I do Python and C, if anyone's wondering. Shameless plug: I'm looking.)
If anything, it seems just as easy to learn tech skills, particularly programming, on your own. And you are easily able to test and prove them to the real world. Think you have a great idea and good design chops? Then launch a site. It doesn't even have to be profitable, just something that can impress one of the many communities of developers (such as HN).
Where does that outlet exist for liberal arts majors? As most liberal arts fields don't yet primarily communicate to the web, you could publish a brilliant research paper that is never seen by the "serious" academics; same as if you disseminated your theory and findings through a blog.
Of course there are exceptions. It's possible that the next Harry Potter could come from a computer scientist who spends his/her off-hours writing a novel and then self-publishes with a viral marketing campaign. But it's far more likely for a self-taught programmer to build out a great concept, make it Web accessible, and have it seen and spread among the people who are most likely to hire him/her.
In an inefficient labor market with weak signals a degree is still relevant in demonstrating academic rigor, commitment, and follow-through. The drop-out sends a countersignal that would need to be balanced with a strong body of work outside of school.
Look, I think no matter what your degree was in, we're at a point where some amount self-directed study is expected of all job seekers. Most of my peers in CS at Michigan studied languages outside of the curriculum and regularly built side projects. That's expected with or without a degree.
An English degree at most top schools is no cakewalk. I would look seriously at hiring one, even for a product/technical position if they complemented it with self-taught skills that we needed.
Plus, you can build a team culture that isn't solely homogenous.
If you get a degree from a non-top-tier institution (and there isn't anything exceptional about your degree as compared to everybody else graduating from the same institution) you haven't sent a meaningful signal at all.
Read his opening paragraph again.
"As usual I get a ton of mail on subjects that are controversial, and one of the more painful ones was the fact that the Dropping out is probably not for you post gave people the impression that I'm against studying the arts, literature or any other non hard science."
Awkward, no? That's because it's a run on sentence.
The things that a liberal arts education teaches you are not always obvious. Of course you can read Plato or Homer or Augustine by yourself, but unless you're in a collegiate environment, it's very very easy to be lazy.
How many times have you picked up a book, skimmed through it, and never opened it up again? How many times have you actually read a book, and then for some weird reason, forgotten all of its contents very soon after? Formal schooling forces you to reengage with texts again and again. Formal schooling forces you to be critical of yourself and your own work before someone else has a crack at it. All of these things can be accomplished by a very motivated and disciplined individual. But how many of us are actually that motivated and that disciplined?
Awkward, perhaps, especially when cut-and-paste de-highlights the link around "Dropping out is probably not for you".
But it wasn't a run-on sentence, jacquesm properly connected the independent clauses with a conjunction instead of just smooshing them together.
As opposed to the sentence that I just wrote, which did not, and actually constitutes a run-on sentence (though some purists might object to lumping comma-splices together with run-on sentences).
If you're going to insinuate that someone's education is lacking based on their grammar, please make sure to actually point out a grammatical mistake.
Or better yet, let's leave the grammar policing aside, it doesn't add much to the discussion given that jacquesm writes plenty good English for blog-format prose...
Of course it would be nice if such comments were accompanied by suggested fixes and/or constructive criticism of the content. But you can't have everything ;)
Here's my feedback, though: I thought your post read as if it had been written hastily. There were some mistakes that seemed careless, like not capitalizing Wikipedia or omitting hypens and dashes in constructs like non-hard science and pro-education. Additionally, there were some issues with sentence structure, especially comma splices, which bermanoid referred to above. For example, the second paragraph:
I guess it was to be expected the way I phrased things there so let me take a moment to correct this perception, the offending lines are right at the start in:
The comma there isn't valid, as it splits two independent clauses without a conjunction. I'd use a period instead, but I'd also rephrase slightly:
I guess it was to be expected with the way I phrased things, so let me take a moment to correct this perception. The offending lines are right at the start:
I'll take one last example:
You can study those subjects to your hearts content and there are lots of places online where you can discuss them until the cows come home.
First, hearts vs. heart's seems like another hasty oversight. This sentence, though, is a different type of run-on. Technically, if you put a comma before and, you're safe, but without it, us grammar nerds call it a fused sentence. This is a pretty serious nitpick, and this is very common among native speakers as well, but two of these in a row caught my eye.
It was written while being disturbed about 30 times by a very active toddler :)
I'll take your points to heart and fix the post tomorrow morning, it's getting late here.
I'd have missed the 'heart's'.
What bugs me about all this is that many years ago I came to terms with working with people from many different backgrounds. Immigrants from all over the globe, in a single company that I ran in Toronto. We learned to look past the mistakes in grammar or pronunciation to the essence of what someone was trying to pass on.
Of course it helps if all written communication is perfect and if everybody would speak perfect English. The fact of the matter however is that language is a vehicle for expressing ideas and thoughts, and to pass those thoughts from one head to another, mostly intact.
Here on HN there is a tendency to ignore the message but to focus on the delivery. This is just a subtle way of attacking the person rather than the subject matter and I always wonder how we would have fared in that office if every mis-spelled word or wrongly pronounced word would have been pounced upon like that.
I think I'm doing ok in English, not perfect but it will do for most everyday conversation. A while ago there was a vocabulary test that floated around here and it tested the most uncommon words to get an idea of how big your vocabulary is.
Such tests miss the point entirely, as does the nitpicking about grammar and spelling. What matters is the idea behind the message and those that manage to look past the errors will sometimes find that that dyslexic or first generation immigrant over in the third cubicle has a very valid point, poorly expressed.
We'd do well to remember that and to always try to digest the message rather than the wrapper that it came in.
So, I really will take your advice , and I hope that it will stick (it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks). Over the last couple of years I think my writing has gotten a little bit better but it is very hard for me to measure my progress due to a serious lack of objectivity.
Thank you once again.
Honestly, the intent of my original comment was specifically to legitimize the non-grammar-related part of grot's comment. Looking back, I failed miserably at that, and the conversation centered even more on grammar. I distinctly remember having written something else that I apparently deleted before commenting. Let me go back and make a comment that's actually valuable.
> Of course you can read Plato or Homer or Augustine by yourself, but unless you're in a collegiate environment, it's very very easy to be lazy.
Personally, I can strongly relate to this. I'm very interested in literature, for example, but I'm not very well read. There are plenty of libraries around me and plenty of resources available on the internet to help me self-study, but I just don't do it. I can self-study node.js just fine, but I need some coercion to get into Shakespeare. This is something a formal education in liberal arts can provide. Whether or not it's affordable depends on a variety of factors, so it's hard to make a sweeping statement in support of or in opposition to such a degree. But I think people are very prone to looking at educational choices as business decisions, where a negative ROI is obviously bad. I think this is a limited perspective, but unfortunately, it's a reality a lot of people have to deal with.
I wonder how common the reverse is? As in [choose: English, Art, History, etc] majors taking Calculus or Physics..
See the trend in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s for "freedom" and "creativity" without "stiffling" grammar and spelling rules.
Aristotle said approximately the same thing over two thousand years ago in two different places: (1) that philosophy is possible only once a society has secured subsistence (Metaphysics); (2)virtue can only be pursued as as goal once one is financially secure (Nichomachean Ethics). Is it significant for any idea of progress that such statements are still possible despite occurring in distinct historical contexts, one of which premised itself on slavery? Is this evidence of an antinomy between the claims of democracy (Yes, we live in a constitutional republic, but it is dressed as the guarantee of equal opportunity and this is what public activism premises itself on lest I'm mistaken) and the claims of the market?
For most people, the dialogue, structure, and deadlines of a college course make all the difference.
1. It isn't relevant to most of the jobs.
2. You aren't entitled to a job.
3. Your well-roundedness and other things you bring to the table is your perception - it might or might not be real and the employers might not feel that way.
4.
"You are a English Major. Great. So why aren't you doing what English majors do."
"You majored in Music. But this is a software development position."
You might not even get a chance to prove you are good(and justifiably so - you aren't qualified), and you might blow up given a chance because you somehow thought your English major makes you qualified for all jobs.
If you are majoring in English, and you want a job in software development, you will have to develop software, build your github profile before people start taking you seriously. Don't expect your degree to play a part.
5. You realize that science and engineering disciplines require a certain amount of time and labor, before you can be considered qualified to work. You can not weasel your way in citing "bah but I learned critical thinking".
6. Steve Jobs' quotes about Mac and liberal arts isn't going to do you any good. Apple hires A grade designers(both UI and industrial designers), and won't care about your English degree unless you have a track record of delivering great designs.
1. It isn't relevant to most of the jobs.
2. You aren't entitled to a job.
3. etc...
This condescending arrogance is a simple example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most academic disciplines have little application in the workplace. Education has a deeper purpose than you think. The mechanism by which educated people get ahead in society is far more complex and subtle than the "learn useful work skills => better at work => more promotions" caricature.
I realize you are posting an analogy. I would still like to point out I am yet to meet someone who studies theoretical physics and doesn't realize how it's going to play out. There is no sense of entitlement, they are aware they will be going for PHD while their classmates get jobs right after their undergrad, and ever after PHD, things are uncertain and they might end up lecturing 1st years.
All I am pointing out is study what you want - it's your life and no one gives a damn - but don't build false perceptions about the way it works, or worse, feel that the world owes you something for you followed your passion.
> This condescending arrogance is a simple example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
No, it's not. Saying that your English Major won't help you get a job which doesn't need an English Major, doesn't say you are dumb to major in English, or I am smarter to not major in it.
> Education has a deeper purpose than you think. The mechanism by which educated people get ahead in society is far more complex and subtle than the "learn useful work skills => better at work => more promotions" caricature.
I don't know which part of my post you are responding to.
Education has a purpose, all sorts of educations has, and there is a common subset. That common subset doesn't make you eligible for unrelated jobs.
No education makes you "eligible" for a "related" job (unless the job is "college professor").
Whatever it is, it's fundamentally flawed. People studying to be theoretical physicists know it's a long and hard path. Also, they are eligible for a number of quant jobs.
> No education makes you "eligible" for a "related" job (unless the job is "college professor").
So, those doctors, lawyers, nuclear physicists, rocket scientists, architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers... should have just got an English major, since their education didn't do shit.
That's outright ridiculous, and wrong. Pretty much anything in hard sciences and technology(programming being a notable exception) requires a related formal education. And it's not bureaucratic - the job needs the background. Your well roundedness and critical thinking and whatever doesn't make you a doctor.
You learn math, programming, statistics, a lot of more math, physics.
You can get a job in a multitude of fields. Finance, programming, game development (advanced physics engine), etc. etc. Math is the foundation for all technologies, if you have a degree in Theoretical Physics you can pick a lot of other technical fields much easier than say, an English major. A lot of engineering knowledge comes directly from physics.
I think his point is that if you want to work on a technical field (programming, server admin, etc.) why are you getting a liberal arts degree? Which is a fair point in my opinion.
The reverse is also true, if you want to do creative writing, media,English teacher, etc. why would you get a "Theoretical Physics" degree.
- a physics major
You wouldn't want to fail getting a degree if you're paying that much for it now would you?
If your poetry study helps you do something, that's awesome but you shouldn't be surprised that others might not find it as useful as you, and are less willing to pay you as a result.
My first degree was in pure mathematics. Now I wish I had done more philosophy, but thankfully it is not a difficult field for an autodidact.
Slice of life: I happen to have an Associate of Arts in Humanities and a Certificate in GIS. The certificate in GIS was gotten as "job training" and I am still paying on the student loan that was needed. I have never worked in GIS and the job I do have started at about half the pay as the GIS-related jobs I was interviewing for. On the upside, attending GIS school helped me get boatloads of life-saving drugs from doctors who wouldn't prescribe me anything while I was mostly bedridden. So I consider that student loan kind of a "medical bill"/cost of survival, never mind my (relatively mild) bitterness at how utterly my well-laid career plans* fell through.
<shrug>
* FWIW: those career plans included a future Master's in Urban Planning. There are relatively few bachelor's programs in urban planning. For this reason, most planners have some other major at the bachelor's level. Liberal Arts majors (at the bachelor level) are not terribly uncommon in that profession, from what I gather.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education"
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree. And you'll be servin' my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.
Unfortunately, I think that more and more liberal arts majors/grads are coming to this realization. It's become increasingly obvious that the degree is not worth the debt. Been to Starbucks lately? 9/10 of the employees there have a degree.
(And in an ironic twist, the guy with the degree won't be the one going on a skiing trip; he'll be the one serving fries.)
That's not to say that liberal arts degrees are "useless"; far from it. But not everyone has 30k+ lying around to indulge in a degree just for fun.
ROI is the proper consideration here. Two questions govern degrees:
1. What's the expected ROI of your degree?
2. Can you financially afford that?
A degree is an investment into your future. It pays off in various ways: financial, social, networking, mental, etc. It financially costs a lot at some schools, less at others. Some degrees pay more money than others. What can you afford? What are you going to college for?
It is indisputable that execution of the degree program is a big deal. Some students are in it for the party, others are in it for the knowledge, etc.
Cost of US college has risen faster than health care costs in the last thirty years. This is becoming an acute problem. I have no idea how I will support my children in college in any significant fashion at that rate of increase. I suspect the whole business will undergo a systemic collapse and reset by then.
Many engineering types are not in college for an education, they are in it for training. They have no desire or interest in underlying principles governing their work, or any other knowledge besides their degree. They want to get out and make money ASAP. I do not like that attitude, it's very short-term and narrow of thought.
Liberal arts types usually are in college for a broad education, having a wide understanding of things. That doesn't work out so good financially quite often. There's little call for a philosopher in the bottom-line lean style world of business. (editorial: That might be a reason why we have ethics problems in business too...) I think it's very important that liberal arts degrees exist. The ideal government policymaker, among their other skills, has a broad knowledge of the world and its cultures.
It is notable that the liberal arts (grammar, logic, rhetoric) were considered in antiquity the proper study of a free person, and slaves were the technicians/manual laborers.
A lot seem to be in it for the sheepskin more than the knowledge per se. I took a college class where classmates explicitly advocated for the teacher to go easy on us and skip some stuff, it wouldn't matter, they just wanted their credits, did not want to have to work too hard for them (ie they wanted that class checked off their schedule, whether they learned anything or not). My reaction: What if you need to actually know that stuff (for a later class or your, oh, job)?
This did not make me popular. It just made me more of a nerdy social outcast.
Like you, I wound up being more ultimately interested in the knowledge.
Sure it's very important to have the technical chops, but it's often more important to be able to bring together people from all facets of the business. Solid writing skills are very important in general and, as many have said, programming is a skill that can be learned just like anything else. Programming is just like writing good prose and good writing is often a sign of clear thinking.
Just my $.02
Sent from my iPhone so please forgive grammatical errors.
I have two observations: A liberal-arts degree gives you perspective, context, and judgement . Contrary to popular belief, these are not innate traits. Given that we just read a very well-received essay about how important judgement is to a coder (http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2011/the-number-one-trait-of-...), it amazes me that we could just sort of forget about other ways these things can be developed.
The other observation is that people talk about being well-rounded like its an inherent good. Perhaps we should spell out why: It increases your luck surface area and exposes you to positive low-probability events.
Being well-rounded means you are better able to place new information in a meaningful framework, because you have a broader and wider set of contexts in which to cross-reference and evaluate your new information. The broader you are, the more likely it is that you can make some useful association with new information. Unfortunately, for the highly-specialized, not only do they not make those associations, but they also don't even know they are available to be made... How do you compute an ROI when so many of the benefits appear to be random?
An example. My father majored in history and english. He ended up writing law and arbitrating disputes. His history background let him understand and contextualize the people he dealt with -- where did they come from? What did they want? What did they value & why? etc... His degree ended up being very useful, even if he didn't obtain his job because of it.
// I really love history and economics books, but the classes were painful
This fact brought to you by a liberal arts education.
This fix brought to you by someone with just grade school.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28grammar%29
versus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-on_sentence
And thank you for making my point in a much more eloquent way than I ever could.
And that is exactly what I meant.
No, I think he was just arguing that you should go to the library and anything that you don't understand you should look up on Wikipedia.
Because undirected study in a rich subject is a great way to understand it.
For example, which would you rather do: spend a few hours/days reading about existentialism or participate in a dynamic class about 19th century philosophy? Which will you get more out of?
Now switch that to machine learning algorithms versus watching Andrew Ng explain it to you in videos.
The two are not the same.
If you have the cash to pay for it, then go ahead and get any education you want.
If you already have the skills you need to get a job and pay off your loan, then go ahead and get any education you want.
If you don't already have a marketable skill and the education you are going into debt for isn't going to increase your employability, then you might want to reconsider your options.
If you think of yourself as a start-up, you should get your MVP first (a skill someone will pay you for). Then when you have a paying customer (a job or a nest egg) add all the cool, extra features (a well rounded, liberal arts background)
However, I think that's not the point of the post, or even what the author is saying. What I understand he means is that you can achieve some decent level of education in any subject by yourself (by some definition of decent), and that for payed education, you should focus on something that has a higher expected return of investment.
I suscribe to that chool of thought, but I was lucky enough to be interested in a lot of field of study when I had to choose what education I'd get. I could have gone for architecture, japanese translation, literature or physics, but honestly, the job market was one of the big reasons I chose to study Computer Science. I still dabble in other fields on my free time, but I chose to focus on something that would give em some stability.
You've got to spell check posts on this subject.
It's absolutely inexcusable that any post on any subject would contain typos, let alone one about education.