Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Big Hairy institutions like "college" are too hard to think about all bundled up. It's an important cultural institution. It's mixed in with research. It's a filter for employers. It's job training. It's education. It's a reason for 16 year old to work hard at school.

To replace it you might need Kahn Academy, 2 years in the army, Tinder and some sort of coming of age ceremony with body paint and singing.

If we're limiting the question to "can he get a job doing this" you might be able to answer it more logically. But I'd be hesitant to take an average 17 year old and recommend they spend 2 or 4 years studying independently over the internet. Too solipsistic.

IMO, if online learning is to be a replacement for college, it needs to be a part of something more.. more.

I could imagine a setup including 25 students and a professor-coach, for example. Some sort of context.

^All that said, the US system seems nut.

View on HN

Exactly.

I see posts like this and I recall how many of my STEM friends hated the concept of liberal arts classes, decrying them as useless and unnecessary to their degree, where I think the liberal arts are essential to being a meaningful adult. It's also important for good government and being a good citizen:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9112.html

> Anxiously focused on national economic growth, we increasingly treat education as though its primary goal were to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable and empathetic citizens. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world.

The "education" provided in college that extends beyond being good in a particular field is not the right place to get that type of education. It amounts to brainwashing and is extremely dangerous. Also, that side of the education is not the primary reason most people go to college and it is not what is typically advertised or thought of as its purpose. I really wish college was more focused on just accomplishing its purpose. As it is now, they are forcing everyone to learn their ideas of wisdom. This is the equivalent of promoting and teaching a specific religion along with your career training.

How is the learning the liberal arts brainwashing? The entire point of a broad education is the exact opposite, it teaches you how to think and what to think about:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in...

> And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out.

> How is the learning the liberal arts brainwashing?

In theory, it's not. In practice, though, liberal arts in many colleges gets tied up in "political correctness" and other junk, and winds up containing a fair amount of what might be considered brainwashing.

> The entire point of a broad education is the exact opposite, it teaches you how to think and what to think about

That's exactly why it's a perfect vehicle for brainwashing. I can make a pretty good attempt at brainwashing people under the guise of teaching them how to think and what to think about - if I'm so inclined.

There's an element of the left that wants to win the argument, not by having better ideas, but by silencing the other side. (The right has these types as well, but they seem to be more prevalent on the left.) Teaching university kids "what to think about" is a perfect chance to exclude the other side from the realm of what thoughts are worthy of being thought.

Now, there are also professors who are excellent liberal arts teachers, who are teaching what liberal arts are really supposed to be, and that is very valuable. But don't kid yourself, there are also professors who are using liberal arts to indoctrinate.

'What should kids study' an almost entirely separate question. I think we can have a good deal of diversity here.

As things progress, I hope "lifelong learning" takes care of this, at least in part. I remember hearing Bill Gates talk about philanthropy early on and getting the impression he was far less informed than an average MSFT employee. He learned.

I would learn to learn writing today, especially writing fiction. I wasn't interested when I was 19.

I love the liberal arts, but the idea that everyone needs to study them in order to be a good citizen is overstated at best. It's like saying everyone needs to learn to code to be a good citizen: a pretty thing to say, easy to find people who agree, but it doesn't actually make sense.

Whether we like it or not, college really is career training for most people. And it's ridiculously expensive. College would be a lot less expensive for most people without these arbitrary requirements that serve no real purpose.

I would be interested to know if you think there is any particular subject that everyone needs to know, if you don't think the liberal arts are one of those things.

And I didn't phrase my idea well in the original comment, I don't think everyone needs to study the liberal arts at a college level, but everyone should be familiar with them as a whole by adulthood, no matter how you come across them (autodidactically, etc)

Addition: It sounds like I came down hard on the pro-college side. I actually do think colleges can do more, faster and cheaper. But, I also don't think we have a plug and play alternative for the average 18 year old and average parents.

OTOH, if you want to roll your own and you are willing to spend college levels of time and money, it's fertile ground for a motivated eccentric. Get a private tutor. Many awesome PHD students will happily teach you one-on-one for <$50 ph. Find 5 friends and buy 15 hours per week for $150. That's $2k-$3k per semester. Follow a curriculum. elearning tools. Roll your own hazing. It could end up cheaper/faster/better than college.

If you say no to college, what's your alternative. "Learn yourself to X" just isn't enough.

Sounds like a promising start up to me.

> To replace it you might need Kahn Academy, 2 years in the army, Tinder and some sort of coming of age ceremony with body paint and singing.

Well the army has both body paint and singing ... I digress.

I've started the Georgia Tech online masters in computer science (OMCS), and I must say that I am impressed. Do I think that a non-college entity could do the same work? Possibly.

I started the OMCS program because I had been trying to "learn computer science" on my own, I realized that I didn't have the rigor in my self-study that I needed. This lack of rigor really drove me to search out (and thankfully find) an appropriate program of study that I could pursue on my own time (and fit within a reasonable budget).

..how does this apply to 17 year olds, average or above average 17 year olds?

I think hanging everything on motivation alone, in your home, as a 17 year old is tricky. Having no social context for what you are doing is tricky. Ultimately the goal is (IMO) getting as close as possible to the most effective learning possible, say the high watermark being a brilliant and engaging teacher one-on-one with technology assistance to boot. How close can we get to that? How big a component is psychology, social constructs and the like?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com