Hacker News Reader

Comment by dublinben | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty easy to avoid the enormous introductory level lecture classes. Nearly every large university will grant credit for AP or CLEP exams towards undergraduate level classes like Econ 201. These exams cost under $100 for an entire course.

You can also find many schools offering these courses online, for a bit more money. Transferring in a credit is painless.

View on HN

> Transferring in a credit is painless.

Actually transferring college credits is one of the most painful things I've done in my academic career.

How long ago did you attend? Almost all states have made public colleges and universities arrange transfer agreements to guarantee credits will transfer. Most private, not-for-profits have taken up this cause as well. For-profits are still a bit wonky with transferring, because their academic rigor tends to be terrible.

Now, out of state transfers, that's another story.

At UCLA and Cal, 30% of freshmen are out of state[0]. As you said, this is not an easy thing to do to begin with. I don't think that these numbers hold as high for other universities, but it's not 10 or 20 people at a school. It's like 1/8 to 1/4 of the freshmen that may need to transfer credits.

[0]http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_25731300/uc-nonresid...

I never really got the "massive lecture size" thing. My university had ~20,000 students (about 15,000 undergrad), which I thought was mid-range as far as American universities go, but I never had a lecture with more than about 100 people in it. As far as I know, there weren't lectures that large anywhere in the university; I can only think of one hall large enough to accommodate lectures that large. It was used for administering tests for classes that had several hundred students (but all of those classes were split into several different lectures, often with separate instructors who worked together on the class.)

Is the massive lectures thing predominantly a state school phenomenon? Maybe my university being real-estate bound had something to do with it.

To be honest, I preferred large lectures and suspect I would prefer massive lectures for the same reason: smaller lectures are more prone to inane interruptions from students (typically students that had been skipping lectures).

It's predominantly an undergraduate freshman phenomenon. Massive lectures are a weeding-out mechanism as much as anything else.

This exactly. There are millions of kids that want to be engineers or in STEM fields. It may seem rough, but if they can't do calculus, it's better for everyone that they find this out sooner than later and can then adjust their plans. The big lectures are intentionally designed to cut people that can't make it.

That's sad, though, don't you think? What if they could do calculus if they only got to learn in a more supportive environment?

I agree completely. However, when designing a new surgical technique or a better mouse-trap you have to be able to do it in nearly ANY environment. Your job, profession, or avocation is not going to coddle you at all, most likely. If you can't learn calculus in a lecture, then you should recognize this and learn how you are going to learn it, then learn it and pass the test. If you cannot, then (under this more brutal theory) you are unlikely to do so when it really counts.

Also, many many kids are unfit for STEM fields, Law or Medical school, yet go into school as if they are[0]. The cutting has to occur for the good of society and the students themselves.

My '5A: Intro To Physics' course was notorious for the cutting. The attrition rate was 90%. This was intentional. If you could not contend with the bad grades, the stress, the material, and the work in that class then you were out. Better now than in 3 years. My graduating class year was about 7000 people, of which 20 were in physics, a rate of 0.3%.

[0]http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/07/08/math-science-popul...

Of course.

But education systems are a product of political and, consequently, economic belief. We believe in a nominally equal distribution of power, but we also believe that most people are destined to be industrial cogs, with disproportionate power going to an elect few. That's what our school systems reflect: niceties declaring equality while applying a rigorous filter in order to determine the worthy.

Well, it is one (flawed) was of sorting people out. There are better ones, I'll admit, but none will ever be perfect. We are dealing with people after all.

I wouldn't say "niceties declaring equality while applying a rigorous filter in order to determine the worthy". This is just too dour. Filters have to be set. I mean, people without arms just can't be fluent in sign-language. Like wise, people that just can't do calculus just can't be rocket scientists. That is not to say these people are not valuable elsewhere. Hell, I can play guitar a tinge, but I would say a guitarist adds more to life than I ever will. Similarly with a dance instructor. Their talents are what we do all this engineering for.

Worth is not economic, it's internal. What some guy in a tower thinks matters is not what you should think. College, as much as it is a cliche these days, is about teaching you to learn. Whatever that is that you do learn. At then end of it all, you can't take a coin, transistor, or chord with you into the grave.

I went to a state school. Fairly small classes. Most students in a class was about 30-40, average was about 25-30.

I did most of my lower division at the local community college. At the time it was $11/unit for residents, and when I transferred to a 4 year school they told me I was probably better prepared (having had teachers that were there to teach that material).

You do loose out on a lot of connections though. If you go to Harvard for the know-how, that's a dumb move. You can get a better education for much cheaper with a little research. But, if you go to Harvard for the connections in business, finance, defense, etc., that is a great investment. Going out drinking with the son or daughter of Lockheed's CEO or the head recruiter of Goldman is worth the tuition at Harvard.

Well, I did make a lot of connections in the two years I spent finishing my undergrad. Your point is certainly valid, though - connections are a big part of what you're paying for at a big name school.

Hahaha, $200k and 4 years for something you can get from a $200 marketing package and a couple months is a great investment?

What happens if you didn't make a connection to someone you want to develop a relationship with?

Learn how to make connections if you want connections. University is a lot more expensive and a lot less effective for that.

I doubt $200 will get you an invite to the wedding of a Senator's son. Those are the types of connections I'm talking about. Not a phone number or address.

I think you have a solid point, and Noxchi's point was overstated and poorly expressed, but I think there is still something of substance there.

So far as I can see, "a $200 marketing package and a couple months" isn't going to actually get you far, but if you're interesting and know how to network then dropping a few thousand for charity dinners or similar might be able to get you further for cheaper than being one of however many students at a big-name school.

I agree. You have to choose for yourself what it is you want out of college. If it's just contacts, then going to charity balls and concerts is a better way to spend the money. You are going for bonding experiences with the wealthy [0] in order to cement relations and trust and Harvard is a lot more expensive to gain trust than a night in Vegas with head-honchos.

If you go to college just for the education, then there are a lot of places that are very good for the dollar [1] (still though, Ivys dominate).

If you want a mix of the two, it seems as if you'd still want to go to prestigious schools. They have the scholarships, very good teaching, grade inflation, the connections to the progeny of money, and their grads are well received in industry and elsewhere. Really, a cursory look at the data does seem to indicate an Ivy or the Claremonts (though many exceptions exist[2])

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding (Actually a good article to read)

[1]http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Springs_College

Certainly. Prestigious schools offer a package of things, you (as always) need to assess for yourself how well that package fits your needs and how that compares to your other options compared to the costs (in money, time, effort).

Well if the strategy I'm talking about works on the President I'm sure it will work with a senator.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xqeol/the_preside...

$200k and 4 years, or $200 and a couple years sending letters? Btw, it's only going to take years for the President. The CEOs of F500's can be done in months.

There is a part of me that would honestly prefer that everyone went through community college rather than bothering with freshman/sophomore "finding yourself" shenanigans. But I'm biased, since that's what I did... and I'm also biased a second time, because I never had the "must pick a major" uncertainty.

But I think we'd lose a lot of the benefit of doing so if it became a standard.

"But I think we'd lose a lot of the benefit of doing so if it became a standard."

Quite possibly, yeah. Learning environments are quickly destroyed if they have to accommodate people who don't want to be there.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

In addition to teachers focused on teaching, community colleges also have a significant share of adult education... and it's not quarantined away as it is in universities, because the percentage is in the double digits, rather than measured in decimal points.

There are other things, but I'm having trouble capturing them.

When I was in college, I found the evening classes were older people who really wanted to be there and learn. I ended up always selecting evening. At community college especially. There was nearly always 15% of the class that was professionals continuing their education.

Oh, for sure. There was a guy in my Recent American History class who'd been a member of SNCC. Wonderful experience. Still, I think "everyone is there to learn" makes the biggest difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com