Hacker News Reader

Comment by laichzeit0 | Hacker News Reader

> If you are an autodidact, then the entire point of college would be the degree

One of the most annoying parts of getting a degree was doing mandatory classes for stuff I had no interest in whatsoever, but it was core curriculum. Maybe they just couldn’t be bothered to complete the course? Tangentially, this is one of the biggest signals a degree gives to to employers: that you’re the type of person that will do things to completion, even if you don’t enjoy it or find it interesting. That’s a very good character trait in a work environment.

View on HN

While I’m kind of with you that there are added barriers that don’t seem to make too much sense there’s a very real purpose to making you take something like a literature course while studying physics (for example).

Those added requirements are intended to make you a rounded, thinking human—not just a short circuit to more money and a comfortable life.

In my experience employers are caring less and less about a university degree.

What employers do love is pedigree in workshops. “We’re an ex- Googler, ex- Amazon, ex- Palantir, ex- Goldman Sachs” suddenly means the company is inexplicably inherently more valuable and trustworthy. Is it?

After 4 years of taking classes outside my areas of interest in HS, there was little benefit to doing so for another 4 years in college.

Pedigree is exactly the same type of empty credential as a college degree, though, and employers like it for the same reason. It allows the person who makes the inevitable bad hire to deflect blame when the "why did you hire this person?" question gets asked. Hire someone from Podunk State University, or Another Failed Startup and it will look like you have bad judgment. Hire someone from Harvard / Google, then it just gets chalked up to bad luck.

> One of the most annoying parts of getting a degree was doing mandatory classes for stuff I had no interest in whatsoever, but it was core curriculum.

This is a concept that only applies to certain schools.

... in certain countries.

Exactly this. I am an autodidact that built a long career in tech without college. Now that I am retired from tech, I'd love to get a degree, but US's model of spending four years taking a long list of superfluous classes just as a gate to learn the subjects I want is ridiculous. Why is the US curriculum stuck in an antiquated view of a "well-rounded" education?

> Why is the US curriculum stuck in an antiquated view of a "well-rounded" education?

It's not. See my comment above.

I'd love to know a school in the US where I could get a graduate degree without having to waste 2+ years on mandatory pre-req classes that have nothing to do with the education and degree that I want.

>you’re the type of person that will do things to completion, even if you don’t enjoy it or find it interesting.

More specifically, you're the type of person who'll do things to completion if you are forced to. Not so different from a company employee I guess.

In what environment is having the discipline to do something you dislike for a later reward not a good trait?

It's really not either-or, but «following your heart» and «doing what you love» seems to be a better predictor of success, happiness, and major breakthroughs. You'll still do tons of things on the way that you don't particularly like, but a lot of time you will be too focused on the core purpose to notice.

In the context of these comments, perhaps college teaches some people to do soul-crushing things — as the «reward» is not quite worthy and not really connected to what they're doing.

This is a difficult and complex topic.

I think society may have benefited from Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg completing their ethics requirement.

I would bet everyone has a price for their ethics, no matter the course they took. It is a risk reward calculation, and the bigger factor is probably how one’s tribe reacts to their risk reward calculation.

If your tribe celebrates it for sufficient gain as long as there is no direct physical violence, as I think the environment in many families/socioeconomic circles of the US does, then ethics courses are just a cover your ass solution.

Ethics class can literally teach you how to be ethical though. Like it's not that people want to be unethical, they simply don't know how to accomplish their goals in an ethical fashion.

Most people legitimately want to think of themselves as good people, instructing them on making sure that the rest of society views them this way can be very valuable.

ethics is rarely a matter of knowledge.

Can character be taught?

The research shows that ethics courses have no effect and may even make people less ethical

Ethics comes from parents and family, at least mine did. I took an ethics class in college and the only thing I remember was a trite discussion about wether taking a work pen/pencil home to do work at home was stealing.

If you are being introduced to ethics in college, it's too late.

Unpopular opinion time. To succeed in any high leadership position that requires exercise of power, a somewhat sociopathic attitude is required. This is actually a necessary component of a modern society, as the traditional emotionally driven rules of human organization scale very poorly above groups of a few hundred people.

If it were only limited to that. Why does being well-rounded require years of other stuff?

Gates did some sketchy things as a businessman, but now he is basically eliminating malaria. On the balance i think he has positive utility to the world.

Do you believe that the gen ed requirements really do create a lasting impression on the average student?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com