Comment by tokenizer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenizer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>""He tells the story of a high school teacher whose students confronted him with the same question: "Why do we need to learn this?" The teacher replied, "You don't. You need to learn to ask just one question." The piqued students implored him to tell what that was. His answer: "Would you like fries with that?""

This is deplorable. As someone who didn't go to college, the fact that the author acts like they're right because of the status quo, and because Thiel's first start-ups weren't successful is absolutely laughable.

I love how their main argument relies on the fact that the perception of the degree is what's most important. While this may be true, this is simply a perception, and can easily be changed. It's not a "fact".

Secondly, if Thiel's lack of success from his ventures proves anything, it's that he needs work finding the right people to invest in. Just because a small subset of adventurous young adults failed their first time (understandable) doesn't mean that all young adults need the experience of college before they can fail/succeed in their first venture.

Lastly, let's see if the author is bias. Well, they're an academic, are adjuncts in two colleges... I find it interesting that an Academic intellectual has a problem understanding that people can be didactic learners and learn what they want on their own.

"Would you like fries with that?" - Sure, I'd love to buy some fries with my great job that I got right out of high school because I ACTUALLY worked towards my craft in high school. I doubt you can do that with an English, Psychology, Sociology, or even a regular Science degree. What this really sounds like is that college is important if you want to become an engineer. That's obvious. Most other things? Not so much.

>the fact that the author acts like they're right because of the status quo

Well, you do understand that "status quo" means "how things are".

So this is like you saying that he only "acts like he is right" because this "reality" thing agrees with him.

No, status quo means "the existing state" (i.e. how things are right now).

They have been this way for centuries, nay milenia, so it's not like it's some volatile truth that an angry comment will change.

(Not to mention he haven't told us why it SHOULD change).

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

Unemployment literally doubles if you forgo a college degree.

Seriously? You could also state "Unemployment literally doubles if you're Black or African American." (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm)

The way statistics on unemployment, earnings, etc by degree level are being used is disgraceful. It's correlation does not imply causation at the basest level. It's more likely the higher your social and economic background is, the more college you can afford, and the better job you can get.

I see so many people with tons of student debt for a degree that is useless for finding employment. Unless your profession requires a degree (laywer, doctor...) or you can go for free via grant or wealthy parents, most people would be better off entering the work place or starting in a trade. You can always go back to school when you can afford it.

There are A LOT of college graduates out there asking "Would you like fries with that?" to non-grads.

>Seriously? You could also state "Unemployment literally doubles if you're Black or African American."

Your race is not something you can (or should) do anything about, but you can very well try to get a college degree.

>It's correlation does not imply causation at the basest level. It's more likely the higher your social and economic background is, the more college you can afford, and the better job you can get.

That sounds like a direct causual link. Richer -> Degree -> Job. How does "correlation does not imply causation" come into play at all? It's exactly because of being rich that you can get into a better education, and it's because of getting into a better education that you can get into a better job.

>Unless your profession requires a degree (laywer, doctor...)

It's not only the profession that requires a degree. A lot of employeers, nay, most, require a degree too. Especially for higher end jobs.

It's more likely the higher your social and economic background is, the more college you can afford, and the better job you can get.

In our society, getting a college degree has been one of the best ways to improve your social and economic standing. Being the first person in your family to go to college is a huge deal, because it means you're entering a whole different social level.

According to the data in your link, for a "Black or African American", the difference in unemployment from high school graduation to college graduation is 13.4% to 6.3%. That's half, just like I said!

Coldtea: He is saying that there are obvious lurker (or "confounding") variables. It could be that not getting a degree is caused by being poor (or black, etc.) AND that not getting a job is caused by being poor. So not having a degree and not having a job may appear to have a high correlation when in fact they are both driven by a third variable (socio-economic/race/etc.). Look up Simpson's paradox.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, i.e the people who tend to complete large amounts of education would have succeeded whether they had done that education at all.

I'm not saying that that is the actor here, but those statistics don't prove causation.

Of course it does. But is that because of the degree itself or because of the types of people who tend to get college degrees vs. those who don't? I would need to see the outliers and the full data to really come to a conclusion.

12.5% of people is 1 in 8. That's way too many to be considered outliers. More detailed data: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm

I hate to be the "correlation != causation" guy, but that definitely applies to the way you're using this data.

What I meant by that last comment is: whatever the reason is for being unemployed, it must be pretty common.

Remember that the schools, at least where I come from, have a system in place to select the "winners", so the correlation is not surprising. I remember in 9th grade, and possibly even before that, it was already starting to become pretty clear who was going tend towards being more successful in life and the schools pushed those people into the college direction. Certain groups who were less favored for success were actively prevented from going into college, even, by way of not being given the necessary credits.

So, it is kind of like you choosing race horses, ignoring all the horses with broken legs, and then proclaiming the only reasons the horses with broken legs did not win was because they were not selected by you to win. Perhaps it is just because the horses had broken legs?

Doubles, what, if you do nothing but what everyone else is doing (pursue the same jobs, etc).

Thiel is presenting an alternative for those who dare. Find something you love, submerge yourself in it, and try to make a business of it. Worse case scenario you fail, but you then have a world of managerial, technical and fundraising experience that you can take on to the next idea you dream of.

Some people are gifted do'ers, some are just gifted learners. For the former, why delay your skillset learning in an artificial college environment?

Interpreting the data that way assumes everyone is equal, which I think most would agree is not true in the real world. There are a lot of factors that prevent people from graduating, or even attending in the first place, that also seem related to what employers look for in the work place (determination, natural ability, etc).

What does the data look like if you limit the set exclusively to those who are fully capable of graduating from college?

I don't doubt this, due to the perception many employers have about the value of degrees. However, if you're just going to start your own business, then this perception is not an immediate concern.

Of course, if you fail in your entrepreneurial efforts then that's another story.

so many possible replies. just one is: learn about the distinction between correlation and causation. :-)

(and as a bonus, this is one of the zillions of things which can be learned before/outside/without/after college.)

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I have a GED and 1 year of college. I'm 30 and close to breaking $200K this year between my day gig and consulting.

I'm not saying you don't exist. I'm saying you're rare.

I don't disagree with this. I'm saying that a) it can be done b) the status quo rallies against people without a degree "because how could you ever work this job without one" and c) there are plenty of people who are employed who wasted their time on a degree, but that degree isn't used for their career or current position.

TL;DR The education/career relationship in the US is all fucked up.

The modern world was shaped by people that either didn't attend college, or did so briefly:

http://collegedropoutshalloffame.com/

From that page: "Of the top 400 richest Americans in 2011, 27 graduated from high school but did not attend college. Another 36 were college dropouts."

In other words 84.25% of the top 400 richest Americans graduated from college. I'm not sure how that's an endorsement for dropping out of or skipping college.

According to Gallop, the top 1% is comprised of:

* 27% high school or less

* 24% bachelors degree

* 49% post-graduate degree

When we talk about college in this context, we really should specify post-graduate college. Leaving people to believe that just having a degree is enough really skews reality.

And I'd bet money that of the 400 richest Americans who did go to college, a very large percentage came from a fairly silver spoon kind of background.

Most likely 84.25% of everybody earning more than $100,000 per year probably graduated from college. That simply jives with modern America post WW2, as a nation America manufactures college degrees.

It's not about endorsing dropping out. It's about the fact that you can absolutely succeed without college. There is no one path, there is no "right" way.

Go down that immense list of people for whom college was nearly or entirely meaningless: from Jobs to Carmack, from Rockefeller to Carnegie, from Gates to Wayne Huizenga, from Renault to William Hanna, from Sheldon Adelson to Richard Branson, and on it goes.

Interesting resource, thanks!

Is it reasonable, though, to assume that these people were successful because they dropped out? I imagine we could come up with a couple more lists, one of people who were successful and graduated from college, and another of people who were unsuccessful and dropped out.

I think what it specifically means is that you can be very successful without college, that the lack of it isn't an inherently limiting factor. Not that they were successful due to the lack of it.

It means that some people can be successful thus. Some people also win the lottery. For the rest of us, it's wise to have a backup plan that offers some mitigation of downside risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com