Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
I'm very pro-education, and anti-college admissions essay.
Public education for all is not much different than the American idea of “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.
Leave education for those that either want or can benefit from it. Come up with more efficient systems for the rest of the masses.
We both agree that a literate and highly knowledgeable citizenry is paramount to the success of society, but the current western education model is failing to produce that citizenry. This failure is in part because professional educators remain unaware that universal education did not create developed societies, rather developed societies created universal education.
Information alone is insufficient to instill individuals with the character necessary to create great societies. The citizenry must already be strong-willed and self-determined for education to successfully add serious value to their lives. Those are the people who fight for their education. Many students today instead fight to avoid learning anything, because the system they're trapped inside has become so odious and hampered by redundancy, inefficiency, and a total lack of humanity.
Everybody has their reasons about whats wrong about formal education - some are better and some are way too individual, yet lets do not act as if formal edu was something flawless
I used to find such arguments patently ridiculous myself, until a very recent HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35488772.
The political slant in those EXAM QUESTIONS appears completely absurd to me-- its basically on a "full points only if you call the californians hypocrites"-level (and thats not even hyperbole), and if that is what an exam is allowed to look like I don't even want to know how much overt preaching happens in the lectures.
An opinionated professor is fine, possibly entertaining even, and being exposed to conflicting viewpoints is valuable in itself, but THAT went WAY beyound any reasonable bounds.
It's fine if he explains his viewpoints in lecture occasionally, but not if passing a class is dependent on agreeing with the professor on everything. If that were the case, most economists would fail his midterm.
But the fact that the professor himself has no problem sharing this online is concerning itself.
This should, in my opinion, appear immediately and obviously unethical to everyone involved, even if you share the professors political outlook completely...
I can offer a solution though. Don’t create that many for-profit institutions that teach useless degrees. Don’t put students in debt for getting useless degrees that they cheat their way though. Done.
Just because LLM can generate text doesn't mean generating text is useless. Namely, it helps thinking.
Do you also believe humans have to understand fractions because computers can do them? Genuine question; a lot of people think like that.
EDIT: Also, no one is putting anyone in debt. People are free to choose what they want to do. Don't wanna study, just don't. Easy. No, what's actually happening is that individually are making dumb decisions out of their own free will.
This doesn’t disprove that many degrees are profit-driven. Those are bound to have dumb assignments that even an LLM can complete.
> People are free to choose what they want to do.
I wonder if you ever heard of incentives in society. Incentives can be misaligned.
Right, lets stop teaching children how to sum.
I wonder if you've ever learned anything complex in your entire life. Probably not. But the rest of us now that training of any kind starts simple and builds from there.