Comment by evanrmurphy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by evanrmurphy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Currently the accreditation bodies are the biggest hurdles to overcome because anyone that wants to do anything innovative in education either has to be attached to a big name university or has to face the problem of overcoming a lot of red tape. Most accreditation bodies serve the interests of big name universities so anything that deviates from that model is met with suspicion and disdain.

I think it will be market-driven.

As the value of credentials relative to demonstrable skill continues to decrease, people will reconsider the proposition of taking on huge debt for a college degree. They'll look for alternative ways to acquire skills, and universities will have to compete by lowering tuition rates and rethinking education. Otherwise they won't attract enough tuition-paying students to cover operation costs. When it comes to the bottom line then administrations will mobilize.

I predict that some universities will make interesting changes (eventually) and many will fail. Just hoping none are "too big to fail".

This has been happening for at least the past 10 years and there has been very little change. There is a lot of pressure and monetary incentive in keeping things the way they are. I'll give you an example. Many lower division math classes are offered by the math department because they are service classes with hefty per unit price tags and ridiculous book prices, i.e. other departments use those classes as a screening procedure and the math department gets a whole bunch of money to invite speakers and support incoming graduate students and the book store gets proceeds from old book resale.

So as long as there is at least one department out there that is not feeling the crunch the math department will not do anything differently and there is always at least one technical department that does well no matter how good or bad the economy is. So from the other department's perspective it is a good idea to offload as much of the screening of students to the math department as possible since who really wants to spend time with undergrads when there are multimillion dollar grant proposals to submit to bring in money. From the math department's perspective it is a good idea to offer as many variations of the same course adapted to different departments as possible and from the book store's perspective it is a good idea to keep reselling old books at high prices. You tell me which one is going to innovate and get the others to go along with them. Each will cling to their old ways for as long as possible because honestly there is no real competition. The only way to get a piece of paper with B.S. and your name on it is to go to a big name accredited university.

Long reply because I've been thinking about this problem for a long time now and I don't see any real way to force research oriented universities to innovate. There is no real incentive for innovation.

The only way to get a piece of paper with B.S. and your name on it is to go to a big name accredited university.

But having the piece of paper is starting to matter less [1]. Most people want a degree so they can get a better job, but who would you rather hire as a developer: someone who spent 4 years getting decent grades and a CS degree, or someone who spent 4 years contributing to open source projects and teaching themselves to hack? Of course some employers would choose the former, but a smart one would at least strongly consider the latter.

What does this mean for families? Many will undoubtedly continue supporting the institutions, but others may question the merit of spending years saving for and paying off debt from college when there are alternatives available. It's easy to imagine cheaper ways to work with mentors and spend time at the library, after all. :)

[1] Trends would suggest that the paper actually matters more now than ever, due to degree inflation, but I think this will prove itself to be a bubble.

According to Spolsky, he'd take the CS degree. Since he is an internet celebrity, people will use him as a credible source to justify their hiring reasons. Also, the HR filters don't really care what open source you've done in your spare time. They won't have much knowledge on it. They will understand what a Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale graduate can bring to the table. But your contribution to Apache won't mean much to the filterer.

Now, having personal contact and a network throws all of this out the window. I don't have a CS degree, I've never gotten a job offer without someone having personally reviewed my application. A friend in HR says they use software that looks for competitors (aka work experience), degrees, languages in that order.

They will understand what a Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale graduate can bring to the table.

How about people attending less prestigious schools?

Now, having personal contact and a network throws all of this out the window.

Exactly, and this is part of what makes open source exciting. Want an internship at Google? Becoming a key contributor to Chromium OS is arguably a better strategy than going back to school, because if you're good you can get a Google employee to notice you.

>How about people attending less prestigious schools?

Nothing wrong with less prestigious schools, but most are specialized in a few focused areas. My own school is not a prestigious school, but it is in engineering and biomed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com