Hacker News Reader

Comment by hcks | Hacker News Reader

I would qualify this type of online comment as infohazard.

If you have ambition and have the potential to get into a nice school, then going to community college is ackin to shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, you can still have a nice career afterwards, but you're cutting yourself from many more opportunities you would have had otherwise.

"excellent instructors" depends purely on luck wherever you end up to, and pretending they are automatically better in CC is deception. Most importantly, how bright are your classmates is the #1 thing that drives higher achievement in my experience, as the learning material is all over the internet anyway.

I would like to add that in the sort of signalling game that higher education is, making "rational" bets such as "taking a year to get partying out of your system" is very much inferior to just doing what is deemed socially acceptable (which is partying while in college).

View on HN

This comment is completely unfounded imo. I did 2 years at community college before 2 years at Harvard. It's possible to transfer to "high-tier" university if you perform at CC.

Further, some states in the US have great CC -> 4 year programs. California comes to mind. Graduate from a Cal CC and you're guaranteed admission to UC. A lot of kids in the bay go to Berkeley to finish their 4 year.

The excellent instructor thing isn't a joke either. You really don't need a top PhD student to teach you Calc 1 + 2 (assuming you're doing a STEM track). It's really just about getting the reps in. You're going to be a bit weak on proofs + theory, but you'll be solid on the basics.

The bright classmates thing is a bit real, but you have to find your motivation anywhere.

I explicitly said it wouldn’t necessarily harm your career.

I just said that going this unconventional path was more than often strictly inferior (in the sense: if you were able to transfer to Harvard you would have had also good opportunities anyway) than going the mainstream way.

When in the world was that? Harvard doesnt take transfers (any more?). If you've been to college 20/30 years ago, well, the scene has changed a bit.

If you come from a low income household and get accepted to an Ivy+, odds are you'll get a full ride (my own case), so calling OP's post "completely unfounded" is completely unfounded.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/transfer-applic...

They're super picky about who they take, but they do take a few transfer students each year.

Taking a handful of students is hardly the basis to go around on the internet recommending people apply to transfer to Harvard.

On the contrary, being 1 of a handful of transfer students despite coming from a CC is a pretty high recommendation for CCs

I had a friend who went from CC->Berkeley(BS)->Stanford(JD). If you are really looking for credentials, you can spend 5-6 years and get amazing credentials by starting off at CC (this guy completed a lot of CC credits during high school and the summer so he completed his JD in 6 years).

I know, for example, many employers aren't exclusively looking for Ivys or even higher-end universities either.

In reality, though, a Stanford grad can skip the L+1 promo process at many tech companies and get in on a higher pay-scale.

Also look at the Harvard Extension school. You can get a bachelor's degree from them. Same Harvard name. Different Harvard price. Very slightly different latin on the sheepskin.

Stanford does the same thing too.

Very few people are going to be able to follow in your path, which is why looking at statistical outcomes is a much better way to analyze features of a choice.

This is such an excellent point. In my 4 year degree, the younger less experienced profs were the best. The highest tenured profs with the most papers, funding, and citations sucked at teaching.

I think you've misunderstood the suggestion. "excellent instructors at the most critical time of higher education" is a reference to the two years you would spend at a full university after knocking out a bunch of credits at a community college. This would allow you to save around half the cost, while still having a name-brand degree and top professors for your higher-level classes.

jschveibinz's post doesn't actually say you should transfer to a full university.

Perhaps we can guess they meant to - but it ain't what they said.

To the contrary, quoting the relevant remarks:

> You will end up saving half of not more of the tuition and boarding expenses compared to spending all four years at a major university...

> And you STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university.

Not explicitly, but can you come up with any other plausible explanation for you could "STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university"? That seems quite clear.

Some of my best instructors were at community college. Being a Ph.D. does not automatically make someone a good teacher, in some ways it's detrimental. Having good instruction in foundational classes (math and physics if your going engineering) is important. I would do it that way again and not just for the cost savings. OTOH it did delay my graduation by at least a year, but that's mostly because I took my time.

I disagree with your comment. I went to one of those high-tier universities and wish I had spent the first two years at community college. Low-level classes at big universities tend to be poorly taught, large classes, and I question their value - doubly so for general education requirements. There are tons of distractions, like partying, football, etc. Having bright classmates was also a non-factor; in many classes, and particularly STEM classes, you barely interact with classmates. I would have had a much better academic career if I'd started at a community college - I needed an environment where I could focus and mature more.

Big universities (and the above) oversell the importance of connections made at school. Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter? Many students don't even know what major they will graduate with during that time, and the best connections are those within your field.

You may disagree but there is no counter factual in your personal experience.

Wherever you ended up to, how do you know it would have been better going to a community college?

The data is obviously highly biaised but when you look at top researchers, what % went to CC vs what % to top undergraduate programs?

PS: I say this because I personally know people who went to top institutions lamenting that they should have went another way for some of the reasons you mentioned, and yet they all have landed nice positions wherever they wanted to go.

> The data is obviously highly biased but when you look at top researchers, what % went to CC vs what % to top undergraduate programs?

Right, it is biased. You need a control - two similar people with similar backgrounds. People going to CC are usually not doing so by choice.

I think that ultimately, some people are going to be successful regardless of the path they take. Universities attempt to capture the recognition for where their attendees end up, but I think that has more to do with the attendees than the universities.

> Having bright classmates was also a non-factor; in many classes, and particularly STEM classes, you barely interact with classmates.

I, on the other hand, had loads of group projects in my freshman and sophomore years; and as most of us were used to being the top of our class and having to "carry" other team members who weren't invested, we all had a refreshing realization that, "Hey cool -- everyone here is both smart and motivated!"

Don't know how different that would have been at community college, but I certainly benefitted from having smart and motivated classmates my first two years of university.

> Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter?

The people I met in my hall at the dorm freshman year constituted the core of my friendship group throughout the rest of university; and I'm still in contact with a large number of them. I'd say a larger than average number of that group went on to advanced degrees like PhD or law degrees. Influence matters.

Would I have gotten a PhD myself if I had started at community college? Maybe, maybe not: hard to tell. But I am glad that I went all four years. (That said, I only graduated with a single four-digit student loan; those two years would certainly not have been worth a six-digit loan.)

"I would qualify this type of online comment as infohazard."

That's a very strange way to say "I disagree with this advise."

No, it’s a way to react to the tone of the advice.

There is a whole genre of « internet advice » (such that: don’t go to college, study a trade, community college is better than regular college) that are repeated by people for many reasons (such as personal cope, political agenda) that don’t include what’s best for the listener.

To be clear, I was just commenting on your use of the word "infohazard". The fact that you used that neologism distracted me from the point you were trying to make because I was wondering what your use of this neologism signaled about you.

> There is a whole genre of « internet advice » that don’t include what’s best for the listener.

That's just called "advice". The internet just makes bad advice globally addressable.

The term "infohazard", as I've seen it used, implies something where the information is true but harmful. If John tells me the bus is scheduled to come at 3:00 pm but the bus actually is scheduled to come at 2:55, that is incorrect in a way which harms me, but it is not an infohazard.

I consider this type of comment as biased dogma.

I dropped out of school during middle school. I didn't like school.

Google raised me, the internet raised me, I found education my own way by just looking for examples to mimic. Books, internet, and people to talk to. I retired at 30.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The modern academic system is just a factory.

When I screened resumes, I didn't look at where someone went to school, I looked at what projects they had under their belt and what they had 'obsessions' about.

If you put time in, you will become skillful.

If you put time in, and you don't like what you're doing, you'll probably have a less than good time doing it.

If you put time in, and you like what you are doing to the extent you are obsessed about it, you'll probably not even realize you're working or getting paid.

The only opportunities being missed — in my humble opinion — is more exposure to undergraduate research for those who are so inclined. But even that — I’m sure a CC student will find a filling advisor.

CC is a great way to skip the BS and get straight to the point.

> CC is a great way to skip the BS and get straight to the point.

If you enroll in a 4-year school after CC you can get the BS. ;-)

What if you rephrase it to "I took a gap year to find myself" or something more woo? idk, I don't believe it's an employer's business what I do or have done with myself.

There is no ROI for a 4 year $200k bachelors degree unless you're getting into a very small number of fields. Tuition costs are inflated. Yes, you will meet like-minded bright people, but is it worth that kind of debt before even beginning to enter the workforce? No.

How would anyone know you took a year to party?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com