Comment by mikekchar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikekchar | Hacker News Reader

This was a really strange article for me. I'd love it if someone would tell me if I understood it correctly. The author seems to be saying outright that universities are inefficient primarily because the education obtained there has little value.

The author breaks down the value in terms of signalling (which I admit not to understand very well), human capital (i.e. a trained populace -- is there a more antagonistic way of putting it???), and fun for students.

Signalling seems to be validation of intelligence??? (I am SMRT)... I don't know. He has a big section labelled "In defence of signalling" where he seems to simply say that the 4 year wait to get your degree seems to be a bit of a waste of time. The university can provide the signalling by just handing out the accreditation...

He says nothing as far as I can tell about "human capital". Like an education... I just get the impression that the author assumes that there is no value in it... at all? I could imagine a followup article saying something like, "Well, why are we doing this education thing anyway -- Just train on the job! Cut out the middle man!" Except that he seems to want to pump Lamda for... no reason in particular?

I'm just going to ignore the fun bit because it seems to be there simply to make people angry. I guess...

Is this sarcasm? Am I intended to take this seriously (real question by the way)? More interestingly, is this a popular opinion around here given the front page placement?

The author is assuming familiarity with concepts and a body of research you do not appear to be familiar with. The fastest way to understand would be to read Bryan Caplan’s The Case Against Education[1].

The education system provides value by certifying potential employees/partners/mates as being of a certain quality. That’s signaling. Some of the quality is due to something the educational institute did, a treatment effect. Most of what selective institutes signal isn’t treatment effect though, it’s selection effects. Harvard matriculants we’re going to be successful with or without Harvard and the signal Harvard provides doesn’t distinguish much between them given the extremely low drop out rate, high grades and low variability of said grades.

Human capital is what educational institutes add, what they’re supposed to do, teaching skills someone somewhere cares about.

Given the amount Byrne reads I feel quite certain he values education highly. Schooling he may be more or less indifferent to as a college dropout.

Lambda has a superior model for education as treatment effect in its very narrow field to almost all universities given that the number that actually want to train software engineers is very low. Job training is what people want and they can do it well. This is good because giving people things they want and making their lives better is good.

As to universities and fun most people have a great time at university. Having free time, not working, being away from home, alcohol, other things, attempting to date, these are great. Many more people have fond memories of university because it was fun than because of anything they learned.

It’s not sarcasm. Many people think most of education is socially wasteful if privately beneficial because it’s true.

[1]I reviewed it. https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/cua2dr/review_the...

I took this as a completely serious and reasonable proposal. For context, I have taught (middle school through University), am on the board of an education non-profit, have an advanced degree and plan on accumulating more of them.

What is unreasonable about what the author says? You seem put-off by the way they break down college into 3 principal components: signalling, training, and fun... But other than an emotional reaction to that framing, can you say why it's wrong? I can think of one piece left out, but I will explain why it's reasonable to leave it out.

As part of marketing 4 year liberal arts degrees, schools play up a fourth component, which was more of a factor in the past: non-economic human-development (i.e. learning certain topics enriches your life and adds meaning). I do think this is a real component, but I think, in an effort to maximize profit, universities have completely thrown this away in practice (while making it a cornerstone of their pitch). And if we separate economically usefully human development from non-economically useful human development, the later is (by definition) a luxury good. This luxury good can be obtained for free on the internet, so paying $100-500k for it is just signalling. Hence it can be ignored.

Don't get me wrong, I want to live in a world where everyone's motivation is non-economic human-development... But that is not the late-stage capitalism dystopia we find ourselves in - and I think the author does a good job describing the state of things.

Signaling means "how a good or service gives, shows, or enhances the value of the person who has it." What an elite college degree does is signal the person is in the elite knowledge class. It's a seal of approval. If you graduate from MIT, it signals you are very smart and adept in business, technology, or science.

I think his argument is that when the university signals, the teaching part is anti-climatic. In Japan, if you make it into Tokyo University, you are considered the right stuff, and what you learn isn't as important compared to making it there. The assumption is you can be taught or you teach yourself anyways.

Human Capital in this case means networking and potential. Being introduced to fellow high achievers, and having the innate ability to achieve high yourself.

I think he is pointing out that these days, Lambda could fit those important aspects better than a four year college. The knowledge part matters much less than being approved by high value and high status institutions, and being able to create a professional network of elite people.

I don't know my thoughts on this idea, but I hope this is accurate to him and helps understanding.

> The author seems to be saying outright that universities are inefficient primarily because the education obtained there has little value.

The author mentions that the value of college measured against alumni's wages does not follow a knowledge path (as if the skills increase your income) but a signaling path (as if other people can imagine what you are worth). Thats the spiel about the last semester being the most valuable one, regardless of its content.

There is no doubt that signaling is huge: as the recent scandal of admissions into top universities revealed, even though some parents bribed officials to enter college, the kids had no issues passing the classes. It would be cheaper if only going through the admissions process gave you accreditation, since that is the actual valuable part students compete for, and then let the curriculum be free for the alumni (graduating in 2 years instead? Not doing a bunch of classes you wont use, etc).

I agree with the author that the value of education is way overblown, but certainly not 0.

I read the article as a thought provoking way to just twist perspectives around and not as an actual proposal to dramatically revamp higher education. I found it interesting and mildly amusing.

As with one of the other respondents to your comment, I read it mostly as a fun and occasionally provocative flow of thoughts, rather than any specific call to action. It makes a decent attempt to demarcate the different types of value that the current university experience offers to students.

And of course, to do this comprehensively, one must acknowledge that one of the things that university acceptance and attendance offers is some sort of 'signal' of value, or intelligence, or virtue, or something, to a range of people: from parents and friends to wider society, including future employers.

Anyway, to TL;DR what I believe the message of the article is, you could try:

* A Lambda-school-like model might offer the educational value that major universities offer, but more cost-effectively

* A YC-like model might offer the signalling, relationships and networking value that major universities offer, but more quickly and efficiently

* We need to acknowledge that the non-educational aspects (as offered by the YC model) are important

Reply on news.ycombinator.com