Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolverine876 | Hacker News Reader

> I see little benefit in discussing how things should be instead of what they are. There are clearly forces that pivoted universities towards what they are today, telling people what university should be isn't gonna fix anything.

What makes you say they are that, and for everyone, and from everyone's perception? Because lots of people say it on HN? Because lots of people say it anywhere? Does that make it true?

And if it is true, it changed once, why can't it change again? Through these discussions is how society changes - and it will change, one way or another.

> who decided university is the only place you could learn this, or that you could not become a life long learner long before going to university?

It seems like universities are the best place to learn, given the obvious resources? If I want to learn about history, it would be good to have experts in history, books about history, other people studying history, etc.?

View on HN

> If I want to learn about history, it would be good to have experts in history, books about history, other people studying history, etc.?

That would be true prior to the internet and/or digitalization of resources.

Today, a kid in the 3rd world country can access those very same resources. Whats left is the value of the credential - accepted in the marketplace.

> Today, a kid in the 3rd world country can access those very same resources.

They cannot access the experts to mentor them and teach them, they can't access much of scholarly work, which is in expensive books and research papers.

I'm not a child and not in a 3rd world country; I've been through higher education, and seriously studying anything is inefficient and impossible - I simply can't catch up with the expertise of professors in selecting the media and understanding it.

> why can't it change again?

who said it can't? It will be changed by looking into the mirror and fix the incentives or whatever that corrupted higher education. Not by preaching people how they should invest their time and efforts. Preaching only works in churchs.

Why is my point of view "preaching", but yours is something else or something better? One way things certainly won't get better is if we dismiss each other's points of views.

Yours is telling students to fix their thinking because nothing is wrong with universities. A non preaching talking point would be to recognize that there are problems to be fixed and it's not people "thinking wrong"

Universities that stifle dissenting opinions are the best place to learn? Interesting.

There are plenty of online resources these days with active communities where you can learn from peers without fear of being penalized by your peers or an ideologically captured professor who will fail you for not toeing the idealogical line.

Online communities don't penalize dissenting opinions? They are far worse than any university.

> ideologically captured professor who will fail you for not toeing the idealogical line

It's a baseless accusation against nobody.

> you can learn from peers

Peers are no substitue for experts. If I want to become a doctor, I need to learn from professors of medicine, not peers. Who would hire your 'peers' to teach a course in whatever you want to learn? Who would ask their advice?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com