Hacker News Reader

>I saw so many of my peers in college “learning” strictly for the sake of getting good grades, not to understand the material conceptually.

I can absolutely identify with this. I've seen way too many class mates get way higher grades than me without even really knowing any of the concepts they're supposed to be showcasing. Meanwhile all I ever had was conflict with teachers.

My theory is that school is simply aimed to produce docile bodies that will do what is asked of them. The whole learning bit is just smoke and mirrors to fool you into thinking that it's useful.

This is nothing new. These sentiments have always been common.

Clips from a well-known 1960s documentary with context from one of the filmers (Sixteen at Webster Groves): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giQxUkZ4Anc

You would be correct, that is indeed a large part of modern "education". See the signaling theory of education for more.

> I have a (perhaps unpopular) pet theory that college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades.

This has been an on going prediction since, and likely before, television became a thing.

Universities are worthwhile because you're surrounded by other driven students. The social aspect is at least as important as the quality of educational instruction, and remote learning isn't going to replace that any time soon. It isn't even a good replacement for in-person instruction, but at least it's starting to become a workable alternative.

> future generations will look less favorably at taking on a huge debt burden to attend in-person college

I agree here, but it will likely mean that student pick less expensive universities or some other in-person alternative (e.g., in the states, community college for two years -> two years at a state university).

> college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades

Probably not because we live in a crony capitalist society now. It's well established at this point and not likely to change anytime very soon.

College began as a purely elitist cultural institution for the rich. Like all other technologies it was only adopted by the masses once the rich became more bored with it.

The only pre-middle-class-era attendees of University were the highly-religious attending theological schooling and the highly-genius (ala Newton).

In our crony capitalist society college represents a simple and profitable hamster-wheel class separator. The same percentage as has always been will be granted upward mobility while an increasing percentage will remain in place.

Until you convince average intelligence people that college will not grant them wealth, status, or success then they will flock in greater numbers to it like a lottery. They will willingly indebt themselves for a mere chance at a better life.

It's absolutely horrific and disgusting what our society has become. If only we could convince people to focus on strengthening the middle class and having a degree of contentment in life then we could get past the crab in a bucket mentalities that the University system breeds.

Excellent remark. In other words, college is a tournament.

Peter Thiel was very accurate with his remarks about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb28ZSvuKEw

It's not unpopular at all. Watch Silicon Valley. The very first skit is Peter Gregory talking about why school is bad...this is the opposite message of Adam Sandler in Mr. Deeds.

I think you are right but I think that also is going to be part and parcel of traditional colleges changing. You absolutely cannot replace the role of college community nor tenured professors working with you in person. It, in my experience, doesn't translate to online. You need these people for mentorship and to offer constructive and informed criticism of your work. We as humans need the socialization so we don't turn into cranks.

HN and SV despise schooling sometimes, but we as a society don't progress without it being dominant in some form or fashion.

Funnily enough, that scene ends with some dude yelling "fascist!" and walking out. I never knew how uncannily accurate of a parody that stuff was until I started posting on HN.

Western Governors University has this really interesting test-based approach. If you pass the tests, you pass the class - however long that takes. You can get a degree just by passing tests, with out ever watching a lecture, even online. That doesn't get you the prestige of a "name" college, it doesn't get you the network of people, but it documents that you provably know your stuff. If I were a hiring manager, I could see regarding that as a plus over a traditional university.

The thing that WGU lacks is breadth of majors. I could see such a system replacing[1] traditional universities in the next couple of decades, but it has to expand to cover more majors, and it needs more than one school doing it. But if it happens, the way it's going to happen is by managers and recruiters realizing that it's better because it's provable.

[1] Well, such a system could replace traditional universities as a source of knowledge. It can't replace them as a source of contacts or a source of elite prestige. Traditional universities will probably survive on students who want those things.

In the Humanities, your theory is widely accepted.

Eidolon was an online Classics magazine that recently closed up shop. In their version of a 'fail essay', the head editor says the following about formal Classics education:

"I’m not going to downplay the extent of the problems we’re facing. In addition to the concerns facing Classics specifically and the humanities more widely, there are also enormous and terrifying problems facing higher education in general. Even before the massive disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, these problems already looked insurmountable: on one side the student debt crisis, which has financially crippled an entire generation, and on the other side the increasing precarity of the academic workforce has made teaching Classics (and every other discipline in academia, really) a terrible professional prospect. This is not to mention academia’s endemic problems with classism and sexual harassment."

The rest of the essay is quite good and you should read it all. But the thesis is the same: Fixing higher education is insurmountable.

I want to note the author/editor, because I feel many of the people that read the essay may not have. Her name is Donna Zuckerberg. If that name rings a bell, it should. She is the sister of good ol' Mark Zuckerberg. One of the richest people in the history of mankind. That a woman of such extraordinary and astronomical privilege is saying that things are insurmountable (with experience in fighting against it) should lend even more credence to her words.

https://eidolon.pub/my-classics-will-be-intersectional-or-14...