I'm not American so things might be a little different, but my grandfather graduated with a two-year course in the early 60's, and with that degree he reached the highest management position (locally) of the tube factory he worked on. He told me by the time he became their boss, all his colleagues had multiple engineering degrees. He didn't do his job any worse than they did, even with a decade less of schooling. During the summer he worked as an intern in factories, working as any other employee and receiving about as well. Nowadays he would need a bachelor's to touch anything near the factory.
*BUT* he did go to a free state-owned college. I guess he would've been able to pay by working part-time if he lived in the US in the 60's, but otherwise, he certainly would not have been able to study and go on to achieve what he did.
Learn R, not Stata! R is a lot better for data transformation and stat analysis. If you work with a lot of programming/putting algorithms into production, then Python is even better.
the real issue is the length of the so-called curriculum, as well as its depth. people first need wide knowledge bases before deep dives into issues they know nothing about generally.
One teacher once taught me how to think...but he failed me because he is said my thinking is wrong...haha. you will only pass the class if your thinking matches his...
I think the university needs to be separated: reserved for the intellectuals, those who do not need to be taught how to think, and should be split from a streamlined and purely factual, technical, and practical education for the majority of people. This would, I hope, diminish the current rot, devaluation, and harm done to the universities and their "signals" which is leeching into society. Currently we have conflated those who just want to prove they can do a job with the intelligent intellectuals and given them equal weight and credentials, and that is very dangerous indeed. An educational system focused on mastery and understanding instead of rote proof of conformity with basic intelligence and work ethic would naturally weed out those in it merely to "game the system" or, even worse, spread destructive ideology. This does not seem currently possible, in the existing system, at a meaningful scale. The university and all the good it can do is being dismantled by this problem. Absolutely dreadful.
Cant agree with this enough. If I didnt have to study alongside the masses of the braindead we want jobs crowd I think I would have put allot more effort in. Intellectual students need each other to be encouraged to thrive despite economic unsustsinability.
I think you mean education should be something people do for fun, for people who are actually really interested in a subject rather than just getting one for the job market. The way you phrased it though sounds super elitist and arrogant
Intelligence and aptitude is determined at birth and certainly by age 7 we know who is smart and who isn't. Only the smart talented kids should really be educated. The rest should be placed into fixed societal roles upon high school's end. Continuing education is merely overextending childhood for most intelligent people.
That's not quite true. It holds somewhat true in regards to larger groups, where the law of large numbers works in our favour. Then the as-yet poorly understood, random-seeming, confusingly named "nonshared environment" mostly cancels itself out. But in regards to individual students, our predictions are much weaker. In particular, while I'm open to the possibility that letting experts dictate who should pursue which careers might one day increase average job performance and life satisfaction, I think we should be very careful about that sort of thing. We should demand a lot of evidence before we give serious consideration to something like that. There's also the problem that childhood IQ correlates only imperfectly with adult IQ, in part because childhood IQ is more environmentally malleable than adult IQ. This could in theory be solved through PGS or family history, but the former isn't quite there yet and the later is politically difficult.
Hi all, here's the link to part one in case you missed it: goo.gl/uUWU3P
The price of college is already too high we just need to stop guaranteeing loans.
So much I agree with in these talks. Keep it up the spread of the information.
I'm not American so things might be a little different, but my grandfather graduated with a two-year course in the early 60's, and with that degree he reached the highest management position (locally) of the tube factory he worked on. He told me by the time he became their boss, all his colleagues had multiple engineering degrees. He didn't do his job any worse than they did, even with a decade less of schooling.
During the summer he worked as an intern in factories, working as any other employee and receiving about as well. Nowadays he would need a bachelor's to touch anything near the factory.
*BUT* he did go to a free state-owned college. I guess he would've been able to pay by working part-time if he lived in the US in the 60's, but otherwise, he certainly would not have been able to study and go on to achieve what he did.
Learn R, not Stata! R is a lot better for data transformation and stat analysis. If you work with a lot of programming/putting algorithms into production, then Python is even better.
Learn of all of them...won't hurt
Credentialism has been scammed too, entirely pay for play with the stacked expirations.
The curriculum is the real issue these days
the real issue is the length of the so-called curriculum, as well as its depth. people first need wide knowledge bases before deep dives into issues they know nothing about generally.
One teacher once taught me how to think...but he failed me because he is said my thinking is wrong...haha. you will only pass the class if your thinking matches his...
I think the university needs to be separated: reserved for the intellectuals, those who do not need to be taught how to think, and should be split from a streamlined and purely factual, technical, and practical education for the majority of people. This would, I hope, diminish the current rot, devaluation, and harm done to the universities and their "signals" which is leeching into society.
Currently we have conflated those who just want to prove they can do a job with the intelligent intellectuals and given them equal weight and credentials, and that is very dangerous indeed. An educational system focused on mastery and understanding instead of rote proof of conformity with basic intelligence and work ethic would naturally weed out those in it merely to "game the system" or, even worse, spread destructive ideology. This does not seem currently possible, in the existing system, at a meaningful scale. The university and all the good it can do is being dismantled by this problem. Absolutely dreadful.
WormyLeWorm elitist
leave economic theories to scientists please.
Cant agree with this enough. If I didnt have to study alongside the masses of the braindead we want jobs crowd I think I would have put allot more effort in. Intellectual students need each other to be encouraged to thrive despite economic unsustsinability.
I think you mean education should be something people do for fun, for people who are actually really interested in a subject rather than just getting one for the job market. The way you phrased it though sounds super elitist and arrogant
Intelligence and aptitude is determined at birth and certainly by age 7 we know who is smart and who isn't. Only the smart talented kids should really be educated. The rest should be placed into fixed societal roles upon high school's end. Continuing education is merely overextending childhood for most intelligent people.
That's not quite true.
It holds somewhat true in regards to larger groups, where the law of large numbers works in our favour. Then the as-yet poorly understood, random-seeming, confusingly named "nonshared environment" mostly cancels itself out. But in regards to individual students, our predictions are much weaker.
In particular, while I'm open to the possibility that letting experts dictate who should pursue which careers might one day increase average job performance and life satisfaction, I think we should be very careful about that sort of thing. We should demand a lot of evidence before we give serious consideration to something like that.
There's also the problem that childhood IQ correlates only imperfectly with adult IQ, in part because childhood IQ is more environmentally malleable than adult IQ. This could in theory be solved through PGS or family history, but the former isn't quite there yet and the later is politically difficult.