Comment by ht_th | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ht_th | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Growing up in the late 20th century, I cannot imagine not having gone to university. Without it, I'd still live in a small village and probably doing some menial work in a factory or on a farm. I would not have had the experience of focussing on a subject for five years straight. I would not have had the experience of being able to reflect on society and my role in it. I would not have had the experience of discovering ideas far beyond my imagination during my teenage years.

Was it worth it? To me, certainly. To society at large? The society being a post-industrial society morphing into an information society, having yet another worker for factories or farms that do not need it, does not seem to be a good contribution. I went to university, and because of that I contributed in ways I would never have been able otherwise: I've taught in high school; I've done historical research at a university; and I've done research on how to better prepare our children for participation in the information society. But was it worth it?

To be honest—without being a reductionist—, my contributions to society are slim. Maybe I've effected one or two students in a way that will set them on a path true contribution to society. Maybe I've effected others to take a wrong turn. I don't know. And my research? In the end its target audience was a small research community and, although I've been cited enough, its impact is just a drop, if that at all.

But that is just me. I imagine that your stories and those of other who went to university are similar in a way. Our contributions might be tiny, but what about taking together all of our tiny contributions?

I grew up in an African village of 200, miles from anywhere and anything. I finished school but didn't go to university. Armed with that and my interest in computers I've managed to land jobs at both Microsoft and Nokia.

As ever, every example has a counter-example. I don't know which approach is right, but crazy grateful I didn't go through the American system. The cost strikes me as crippling.

In most other Western countries the universities are pretty much the same as American ones, just without the crippling costs. U of T charges $10K USD annually for tuition, for an undergrad science degree, for a Canadian. McGill charges Quebec residents a stunning $2,000 a year for a science degree. There is no significant difference between U of T or McGill and any American university you care to name.

Student costs are similar in France and Germany, if not a lot lower.

It's simply a question of the US government spending money on things other than educating its citizens.

This is actually the most insidious misperception that a wide swath of people appear to have about American education.

It's not that the government spends too LITTLE money - it's because it spends too MUCH without any in the form of cheap student loans with no risk based pricing.

Any 18 year old with no credit history can go and and take out over a $200k of student loans ($57,500 / year) from the government, without any regards to school or risk.

Barely graduated high school and majoring in underwater basketweaving at BoneHead U? As long as it's an "accredited school" (a sham process in and of itself), here's your money - at 3.5% interest! Nothing secured against the loan, no evaluation of your ability to repay, nothing - just free money with the not-so-insignificant fact that these loans are mostly non-dischargeable in bankruptcy or in some cases even death[1]

Majoring in computer science at Stanford? Here's the same loan at the same terms!

Now tell me which student is more likely to default and which is the better risk?

It's ABSOLUTELY because loans are underwritten by the US government willy-nilly in the name of "education for all" that we're in this mess, with universities building movie theaters and lazy rivers[2] at taxpayer expense.

It's a trillion dollar bubble waiting to pop.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_Sta...

[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/fashion/college-recreation...

In most other countries universities are effective nationalized and loans are unnecessary because tuition is set by government fiat.

Why loan money tot he student to pay it to the university?

Why not just pay it directly to the school and charge the student some nominal amount? There's academic entrance requirements either way.

So, here's the crazy thing. Back-of-the-envelope, but it gives a picture. Harvard has 20,000 students, give or take. Plucking a number from the air, let's say that one year of study is $50,000. Across 20,000 students, that's $1B in tuition fees. Harvard's endownment is $36B.

For less than 3% of their endowment, they could give 'free education'. Obviously the whole picture is a little more complex, but it does add some context around funding.

I can't speak for Harvard, but MIT for example insures that all students who come from families making < 75K attend tuition free.

http://web.mit.edu/facts/tuition.html

I think on a few levels, MIT is not the source of problems in the US university system.

People do not tend to graduate MIT in deep debt and without job prospects.

Harvard and Princeton both offer no-loan financial aid.

http://admission.princeton.edu/financialaid

Interesting. I imagine there's some devil in the details, but taking it on faith, 60% of the students there get no debt. Thanks for the info.

As a student at Princeton, I know I'd never have been able to attend if it were not for their extremely generous financial aid. Princeton's aid package lowered the total cost to well below the other schools I applied to (mostly New Jersey state schools).

Harvard (and most of its peer institutions) give ~free education to anyone who can get in and comes from the ~middle class.

The biggest issue I have with our exiting system of funding higher education is the special nature of the debt. In any other credit purchase, if the service bought turn out to not be what is promised, you have recourse, you and default, file bankruptcy, or even sue. You can't do that with a college education, you're effectively buying it sight unseen with no recourse or remedy, and that debt lives on forever and ever.

If we made it so college debt was like normal debt, meaning it could be discharged in bankruptcy, the cost of a higher education would likely plummet, and come back down into the affordable range again.

That 57k is the lifetime amount for undergrad, not the per semester amount.

CMU is, I believe, the most extreme example at $65K per year: http://www.cmu.edu/hub/tuition/1516-undergraduate.html

CMU's tuition is indeed quite high, but it's actually 50k$ per year for undergraduates. The 65k$ you quote includes campus housing and dining services, so it's not really fair to compare that figure to tuition costs elsewhere.

I wonder how the total costs (to the student and the government) differ. I'm sure that the U.S. is still way more expensive. I wonder, too, how much freedom students have to choose their schools; my suspicion is that students have too much here, and consequently chase fancy dorms and amenities, driving costs up as schools seek to one-up one another.

Similar? I don't know about France, but in Germany it's free, in Holland you even get money from the government to study.

My old University in the US charges in state students 7,000$ per year for tuition 2014-2015 it's 10,200/year out of state.

Plenty of people come up with most or all of that as working students. And one of my roommates came from Europe because it was cheaper than any school in his country though this was a while ago.

My little sister got into a school that charges (ED: 43.2k tuition/year 2015-2016) which she wanted to go to. But, decided to go somewhere else for obvious reason. Some collages in the US charge a lot because they can find students willing to pay that much money, but there plenty of reasonable options.

"Good" private schools (Harvard, Stanford, MIT etc.) charge a lot for tuition then redistribute funds so that people from less affluent backgrounds get need-based scholarships. I think this pressures other private schools to raise costs in order to seem competitive, even though they don't often have the same generous financial aid. In some cases, going to Stanford may be more affordable than going to Berkeley even if you're in-state.

The strange consequence of this is that it is almost better (from a selfish viewpoint), if you are not rich, to not have money saved for college if you send your kid to Harvard, because they'll take any money you do have.

The room and board cost is mostly based on cost of living (Boston and the Bay area are more expensive than Madison, Wisconsin), but financial aid will often cover that too.

> In most other Western countries the universities are pretty much the same as American ones, just without the crippling costs.

The sticker price is misleading though. There are scholarships for merit and grants for need. Work study (often in makework jobs with ample downtime for studying) for almost anyone who seeks them out.

Even after that, employers in competitive fields offer loan repayment as a starting bonus, or doled out over time for retention. Work in public service makes some eligible for loan forgiveness.

Even without that, the loan companies have provisions for indefinite deferment during unemployment and automatic forbearance during enrollment in any other academic program. Income based repayment is a standard option. Essentially, if you wanted to break the system, you could pay full price for a ridiculously priced private school degree then probably go work at starbucks and send them $20 a month for a while, then go take four years off to study pottery at a community college to pay $0 a month while the fed pays all your interest.

Oh, then even after that, even if you are actually personally paying interest on a loan, historically the rates have been competitive (though that flipped a few years back), and there are tax credits for education spending, and deductions that kick in even when you're just repaying school loans.

The most surprising feature of the American system to me is not the price, but how hard it works to camouflage all its progressive and meritocratic features.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/college-is-chea...

> The sticker price is misleading... There are scholarships... Work study... employers... offer loan repayments... public service makes some eligible for loan forgiveness

Most of these (scholarships, work study) are available in other countries without the sticker price in the USA. Employers don't need to offer loan repayment as a starting bonus in other countries because the sticker price isn't so ridiculous.

It worries me how you rationalize this away - what happens if you don't get a scholarship or that loan repayment as a starting bonus and don't want to work for the government? If you just want to work for a mid-tier accounting firm then your education could be costing you an astronomical portion of your paycheck.

My experience supports the view that even with aid, American university prices can be prohibitively high.

Back in 2011, I got into a few prestigious schools (CMU, U Chicago) that talked a big game about need-based aid. They trimmed a good bit off the sticker price for me, but it was still more than I could afford without getting into more debt than I was comfortable with. I'm graduating next month from the University of Pittsburgh where I pay no tuition because I grew up nearby and my high school performance was up to par. So my friends who do pay tuition are subsidizing my degree.

> Most of these (scholarships, work study) are available in other countries without the sticker price in the USA.

That's a distinction without a difference if almost no one is paying the sticker price except for the trust fund kid without any ability or willingness to work.

> It worries me how you rationalize this away

I disagree with you because the alternative model, "free or cheap for all," ends up subsidizing that trust fund kid who has no ability or desire to work. If you're subsidizing the rich, it's ultimately at the expense of the poor. It's a regressive system dressed up as progressive, it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Characterizing our disagreement as "me rationalizing something away" though is undeservedly patronizing. If I responded in kind the discussion would quickly devolve into name calling.

We have a good faith disagreement. We can treat it that way or just not bother discussing it.

Therr are other ways to tax the wealthy than with extremely complex tuition funding shell games

Quick correction, it's ~2000$-2300 per SEMESTER, so ~4000 per year (McGill)

I never went to HS or college. It's pretty easy to learn if you're motivated and have an internet connection. I have a high-paying career that I made for myself. Of course, whenever I bring this up people write me off as some kind of genius (I'm not) or some kind of exception. I'm really not. Yes, statistics show that going to college is correlated with more financial success than those who do not attend college. I suspect that has more to do with the demographics associated with those who attend college rather than what was learned in college.

Regardless, my problem with college is they take zero responsibility for their student's success while simultaneously employing rhetoric and advertising that tells kids that it will help them get a job. This is borderline fraud. Colleges should not be able to sell kids degrees on the idea that they will get a job with them whilst not actually accomplishing that.

What do I mean by taking responsibility for success? There are trade schools where if you don't get a job within X years you only owe a fraction of the tuition (or none at all).

I'm a high school student in the UK in the process of applying to university courses beginning September this year. I haven't really put much thought into why I'm applying to universities as opposed to doing something else. It just seems like the done thing.

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it comes to programming and software design, but if I were to be thrust into a working environment right now I'm sure I'd be woefully unprepared. My thought has always been that these kinds of 'working' skills are what you get at university, but really I have no idea.

Ultimately I quite dislike the world of assignments and exams, and entering into university I assume will just be a continuation of this. Your comment has really made me start considering my choices more carefully. This is probably the first time I've even considered going straight into a job in fact.

Do you have anything to add? Thoughts or advice?

Edit: should clarify that I did realise there were options other than uni but never considered them. Also I realise experience is a key part of 'learning how to work', but even with that in mind I feel like there would be a huge barrier to overcome if I chose to take a job now.

A computer science degree at University will not teach you 'working skills' for the software world, you only get those from working on software with a team. I started my first job as a part time software developer at a local company in my last year of highschool and I'm now working full time at my second software company (And I'm only 20), I attended the first year of a computer science degree through my highschool which is the only higher education experience I have. As long as you demonstrate the ability to learn I think you would do fine at a software company, it's definitely something I would investigate before committing to university.

Now this is only my perspective as someone living in New Zealand, I'm not very familiar with the UK. But I think it would still be similar in the UK.

P.S I feel I should disclose that I am biased against universities, none of my friends have gone to uni and my flatmate is in the same situation as me. I don't really believe in the reasons most people go to university, I certainly don't think it's a decision someone should make coming out of highschool.

I strongly suggest getting a degree. Not having a degree if your alternative plan goes wrong will suck hard. Employers want a degree. Immigration agencies want a degree. The only people who don't care about a degree in most circumstances are customers.

If you were going to take a gap year anyway you could look for an internship gap, or do a bootcamp like general assembly in London or Iron Yard in Madrid/Barcelona and then intern/freelance.

This is not a defence of mass undergraduate education. I believe the social value of that is, and that the credentialism it enables is a cancer. The private returns are great though.

If you never find yourself broke and looking for a job, any job, if your career is basically uninterrupted starting from the tech space, skipping university to go straight into work will be fine. If you save a lot while working you should also be fine. You can go back to school when the economy disappears for three years if you want to.

You are unlikely to be as special as you think you are. Having a degree signals conformity, conscientiousness and intelligence. Employers really like all three. Don't commit to anything. If a gap year works out great keep going but not having a degree turns some jumpable barriers into climbable ones and makes some climbable ones impossible.

> My thought has always been that these kinds of 'working' skills are what you get at university, but really I have no idea.

You will not. You will acquire those working skills in the course of the profession. A degree program may expand your academic knowledge of computer science, and attendance at a university will provide networking opportunities where you will meet people and be exposed to new ideas, but it will not teach you to be a tradesman.

If you want to be a trademan (specifically, a programmer), you need to start working in that trade - find a job as a junior programmer. You'll learn more relevant to your desired career there than you possibly could at university.

This is one opinion. Please get counter-opinions for balance.

IMO only mugs and rich kids go to university in the UK now.

I doubt you'll get working skills at uni. Depending on the course, you're more likely to get mind-broadening introductions to CS ideas and techniques you're not yet familiar with - hard stuff about algorithms, difficult languages you wouldn't usually touch, and the like.

But you don't get actual work experience unless you do a course with a one-year industrial placement.

At best you get solo and group practice projects you can maybe showcase to employers.

But - here's the thing. With GitHub and StackOverflow you can get similar project experience working from home.

And academically, there is nothing at all you can learn on a CS course you can't learn from books and the Internet. You may have to find and buy a few expensive books - but you'll have to buy the books anyway.

Three years from now everyone else will be leaving uni with no practical job experience and three years of debt. You have the potential to have zero debt and one, two, or even three years of practical experience, having built a solid project portfolio that should at least get you on a shortlist for many jobs.

And if you're interested in startups and business, you're much better off getting into that as soon as you can.

Assumption - you're fine with working hard. If you just want to sleep all day, this plan won't work.

There are three downsides. One is that some tech jobs specifically demand a degree. Depending how stupid the company is, HR may specifically filter out non-degreed applicants.

That's definitely a downside, but it's only some employers,

Another is that uni gives you networking opportunities and personal friendships you won't get at work. Some can last a lifetimem. They certainly have a personal value, and in the top-rank unis they have financial value too. (To be blunt about it.)

But if you're applying to Average Uni of Middleshire I'm not sure they're worth three years of debt and the lack of cash later when you're (e.g.) thinking about buying a house.

The final downside is that you have to look at the quality and location of the work you can get now. If you're in London or a tech hub like Cambridge, it's worth considering. Likewise Bristol, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and so on.

Also, international remote. Well worth exploring.

Smaller towns - not so much. I'm sure there are small-town jobs with a future, but personally I've never seen one advertised anywhere.

So this only works if you have a realistic chance of a job with some prospects. If it's a crappy timewasting job where you learn nothing and get paid peanuts - no.

Of course you have to avoid those later too. They don't go away just because you have a degree...

tl;dr - if you decide you absolutely have to have a degree, you can always get one later. But the loan is a huge downside, and it can cripple your choices later.

It's smart to at least think about avoiding it. If you decide in the end it's worth the cost, you'll be making a conscious decision, not just following the herd.

I'd keep applying, just because. But unless things have changed you're not obligated to start a course until you sign up for one. So even if you get offers, you can look around for jobs for the next few months and not sign up for a course if you find something with prospects.

There is no GitHub or StackOverflow for mechanical engineering, civil engineering, high-voltage electrical engineering, biotech lab work, etc.

Would you hire an accountant for your business who was just enthusiastic and good with Google?

You know there are other degree programs other than CS at most universities right?

It's true those all have better reward profiles than CS. But I'd still consider an apprenticeship instead of a degree for civils and mech eng.

>Would you hire an accountant for your business who was just enthusiastic and good with Google?

Oddly enough I taught myself basic biz accounting using enthusiasm and Google. The wheels haven't come off yet, so it may not have been a total failure.

Bio lab work you can do from school. Bio innovation is a whole other thing and you'd certainly need a good degree for that, if not a PhD.

But OP specifically mentioned computing and showed no interest in civils, elect eng, bio, etc. So snarky comments about not knowing that other options are possible are perhaps misplaced.

Also, I remain unconvinced by the quality of much degree-level education in the UK. The mid-lower market seems more about getting bums on seats, and high value degrees are not so easy to find. With so much competition from (rich) fee-paying foreign students they're even harder to get onto.

What gives you the impressions that colleges are some sort of job training program? Having experience is much more beneficial for preparing and gaining a job. A degree without the accompanying internship, volunteer work, or portfolio is not worth as much to an employer.

>What gives you the impression that colleges are some sort of job training program?

Oh, you know, just my entire upbringing. Job ads asking for a B.S, M.S., or Ph.D. help too.

In the information age and the knowledge society, unfortunately we don't need this industrial revolution legacy of boom in population growth to service factories and mines and the AI era and app economy would exacerbate the problem and squeeze more people.

We as humanity at a crossroads in our history as species and a civilization and we need to stand up to this challenge and conquer our problems and fears.

Finally, I must congratulate on your contributions to the progress of humanity, every good word counts and every good idea enriches out lives.

Thank you for all!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com