Hacker News Reader

Comment by Clubber | Hacker News Reader

I think an undervalued aspect of college over self learning for most is that college requires you to learn a broader array of things. If I was allowed just pick the classes I wanted to take for four years, they would have all been computer related classes. I would never had taken Chemistry, Physics, Drama, Psychology, History, International Relations, or anything that makes me a more educated and well rounded thinker.

View on HN

We look at that positively becomes it's a sunk cost, but if someone were to put the circumstances in front of us would we still be happy about it?

If your job told you that you had to pay 10k to study French poetry for 6 months without pay, would you happy for the opportunity to a more well rounded thinker?

>If your job told you that you had to pay 10k to study French poetry for 6 months without pay, would you happy for the opportunity to a more well rounded thinker?

That's unrealistic.

  1. That's just one subject.
  2. Semesters and/or quarters are not 6 months.
  3. Most colleges don't charge $10K for one subject for 6 months.

Having said all that, yes there were some annoying class requirements that I didn't particularly care for, but I still learned something from it. If nothing else, it allowed me to have more conversations with a broader array of people. Make no mistake, being an educated conversationalist impresses people. Being able to intelligently converse with more people because of a broader knowledge base has significant social and economic value. Imagine if you met your perfect mate by being able to talk about French poetry. Imagine your perfect company has a hiring manager who also loves French poetry. We are ultimately social creatures.

What about lost opportunity cost though? Or the cost of failure?

My college intake class had 60 enter in the first year, and I was paying $2000 out of pocket a semester. Only about a quarter got the paper in the end; the rest either withdrew or flunked out. And from what I understand, 75% starting but failing to achieve a degree isn't atypical for that course.

What happens to those students? The ones that take on debt and then realize far too late that they can't handle the workload and have nothing to show for it but student debt, years of lost income, and no degree to show for it?

And even for those of us that made it though, I'm... still uncertain it was worth the price. Not just in dollars.

>What about lost opportunity cost though? Or the cost of failure?

Well for a high school grad today, most likely the opportunity cost is minimum wage service sector jobs. Those "temporary" jobs are also really easy to get stuck in for life. That's not a good life.

>Only about a quarter got the paper in the end; the rest either withdrew or flunked out. And from what I understand, 75% starting but failing to achieve a degree isn't atypical for that course. What happens to those students? The ones that take on debt and then realize far too late that they can't handle the workload and have nothing to show for it but student debt, years of lost income, and no degree to show for it?

They're fucked, but at least they know where they stand. They should know their chances with the standardized testing somewhat. You definitely shouldn't go to college if you don't have the aptitude or motivation, but you should go to some sort of trade school: electrical, carpentry, plumber, etc. The safest path to college is graduated study, community college for the AA, then full blown university for the last two. At least you get an AA degree, and if you can't handle community college, at least it isn't very expensive.

>And even for those of us that made it though, I'm... still uncertain it was worth the price. Not just in dollars.

The value proposition is pretty muddied with the negligent inflation of tuition over the past few decades, that is a certainty. Unless you are Ivy League, any college will do. I'm fortunate to live in a state where tuition for public college is on the lower end.

> You definitely shouldn't go to college if you don't have the aptitude or motivation, but you should go to some sort of trade school: electrical, carpentry, plumber, etc.

Why are you assuming they would fair any better in trade school?

>Why are you assuming they would fair any better in trade school?

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but if they find themselves in service work, they should do anything they can to not be in that position. Some people just don't have any other options due to aptitude or attitude, so that's where they stay. That's not a great place to be in the US for the limited existence we have on Earth.

Something I learned in high school sports, particularly wrestling, is you have to always work to improve your position. That lesson holds very true in life.

There was never anything I regretted learning.

It's an odd attitude to me that I see on this site, and is VERY prevalent among STEM majors, CS especially. The attitude seems to be that the only learning you should do relates to income and/or career advancement. Look at the story on here yesterday about monetizing, or at least publicizing your hobbies.

I do not regret any of the classes I took. I learned something from all of them. And it's not putting a rosy shine on something I was forced to do. I genuinely appreciate being well-rounded and knowing many things. It made me a better person.

If people just want to learn core skills, get a technical degree like a certificate or associates. That's why those things exist. You can do a 6 month certificate in coding at my local community college if your goal is just to go work and not learn things other than that.

> We look at that positively becomes it's a sunk cost,

I don't care what you "look at it like." I car what the actual statistics demonstrate. Facts don't care about your feelings.

15 years later do you think these classes matter?

Im not totally sure I could tell you most of what I even took let alone what I learned in those classes.

Maybe right after college there's a window of a couple years.

Many people state how much they appreciate their degree. But when it comes down to it almost everyone who goes back from a second degree does so with the specific purpose of getting a credential for their career.

No one really values the intangible personal development that comes with education. If they did I'd have 5 friends who went back for a second degree to enrich themselves instead of 0.

I think there's diminishing returns. A broad, liberal arts, undergraduate education develops critical thinking and reading skills in a zero-to-one kind of way. Once you've attained those skills (whether through a college degree or some other way), further enrichment via self-study is much more easily doable.

>I think there's diminishing returns.

This is definitely true. I think pre-graduate college is pretty eye opening, at least when I went. In most high schools, they just cover the top layer of knowledge; in college they go quite a bit deeper. "They never taught us that in high school," is a saying that applies.

> "They never taught us that in high school," is a saying that applies.

Equally likely, the kid just didn't pay attention.

> 15 years later do you think these classes matter?

Yes. A broad, liberal arts education made me a better, more informed citizen. One might even say I know more than the current President (certainly his supporters) about tariffs, what affects the price of eggs, etc.

If you used all that knowledge to disdain others instead of learning from them, then you have learnt nothing.

“Yes but I’m right and they’re wrong” — When you’re 49% of the population, it doesn’t matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com