Hacker News Reader

Comment by nchuhoai | Hacker News Reader

I don't think you need to be anti-college to be able to criticize the cost explosion of college. I agree, the most valuable part of college are the ones outside the class room (the only reason why i am still in college), but ask yourself this:

Would you still go if it costs 1000 for your family?

Would you still go if it costs 100000 for your family?

Would you still go if it costs 10000000 for your family?

Different people have different abilities to pay for college, so its really not that unreasonable to look for and discuss alternatives with the rising cost of college 4x over inflation.

The same way you experience in anti-college bias, I sense a feeling of entitlement from pro-college: It's like you have to go to college to be worth anything, and if you dont go, you are less of a well-rounded, worthy human being.

Unfortunately, higher education in the US becomes more and more a matter of money and not ability.

View on HN

I agree, but that's mostly a recent phenomenon due to cuts in funding for state schools. Private schools have long been expensive (though not as expensive as today), but public schools used to be an affordable option if you wanted an education without the price-tag. However, their tuition has been going up roughly in accordance with state funding cuts. In the University of California system, for example, state funding in 1990 equalled $16,500 per student, inflation-adjusted; today it equals $8,500 per student. So, despite the fact that the system has been getting more efficient (about 25% lower spending-per-student in 2012 than 1990, inflation-adjusted), tuition is nonetheless much higher than it used to be. It seems mostly like the generation that got cheap college education has decided that they're not interested in funding the same for the next generation.

So my solution would be to reduce tuition at state universities back to its 1980s-era levels, and return to funding public universities primarily from public funds, so anyone can attend regardless of their family's financial background.

> I sense a feeling of entitlement from pro-college: It's like you have to go to college to be worth anything, and if you dont go, you are less of a well-rounded, worthy human being.

I try to work against that, and perhaps I come up short. What could you recommend?

Having thoughtful, and considerate responses like these definitely helps.

In my view there are two arguments within this discussion: Does college provide useful skills for later and is college worth these skills? I think sometimes both camps tends to talk parallel to each other. Yes there are a lot of anti-college people who believe college doesnt even provide anything useful, but I think its safe to say that thats not true.

That being said, concentrating on the cost-aspect is I think a lot more crucial and fruitful. And thats where my feeling of entitlement from the pro-college side comes in. We don't need your explanations of how college is an awesome place. It just makes people who can't afford college very angry, since the college degree is already so immensely dogmatized as a requirement for 'good' jobs.

It's a bit like saying having an iPhone is really cool, beneficial and everything. However, if there is a huge price gap to other phones, I don't it would be unreasonable to recommend cheaper, maybe less capable phones or ask for cheaper phones.

The problem with college in the US really is that it is used as a credential and almost absolute requirement for upward social mobility.

> It just makes people who can't afford college very angry, since the college degree is already so immensely dogmatized as a requirement for 'good' jobs.

I see. I was directing my comments more at the 'Thiel Fellowship' mindset, people who are in the position to attend college but are encouraged to drop out to pursue some shitty social startup instead.

As for the point you're making, one thing I think is really cool is the proliferation of paid and free online courses -- I'm taking some online music courses right now and was surprised at how effective they can be. Of course, that requires computer access, which itself is a socioeconomic divider, but hopefully over time that will be overcome as well.

> some shitty social startup instead.

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th... More seem to be in the solar energy space than the social space, I remind myself frequently that quite a lot of startups don't rely on a software product. Of course, without judging worth to humanity, there's a direct opportunity cost to consider. Spend 4 years at a school with a big chunk of your time spent directly on school (depends on school and degree), add on any student loans, vs. spending 4 years making a business or four in whatever has the highest payoff expected value, optional VC/grant funding. (Is that still social apps? Enterprise software continues to be a mainstay if your eyes are open...) Once you have years of job experience (and especially business-building experience), having a degree matters even less than a priori except at BigCos (unless you get acquired by one), and if you actually went with a startup path you probably don't want to work at BigCo anyway.

> requires computer access, which itself is a socioeconomic divider

The limiting factors here, even amongst the poorest of the poor (at least in the US), is almost always time* and desire* * , not computer access or the dollar-cost of it.

* Who can learn while working 16-hour days? As Remy de Gourmont put it, "Very simple ideas lie within the reach only of complex minds. Thinking is hard work. One can't bear burdens and ideas at the same time."

* * If you work 8 or less hours and sleep 8 or less hours, why spend your remaining 8 or more hours bettering yourself and learning when you can just play games, browse tumblr/stumble upon/facebook/reddit/hacker news for all that time? Also who wants to learn that icky math stuff?

> Unfortunately, higher education in the US becomes more and more a matter of money and not ability.

I think this isn't a higher education issue, its an issue with careers in general. Most companies go by a resume, an interview, and a few basic tests. The interviews usually last an hour to two hours long and they mostly want to hear about your knowledge of the company, what you can offer, and standard fluff crap.

Problem is: 1) Resume can be filled with lies and is usually a one page ad that doesn't show off any type of value. It also shows no demonstration of ability. 2) Interview can be useless and also promote dishonesty. It, again, also shows no demonstration of ability. 3) Basic tests are usually too easy (fizz-buzz anyone?) or non-existent and, for the third time, don't demonstrate ability.

What do all these have in common? If only you had to take an actual test or show off your skill in some way with a small project or demonstrate your creations?

Oh yeah, evidence shmevidence...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com