The column seems to be entirely from the point of view of an employer looking to screen potential employees. Like it or not, college is about more than job training. For a lot of people the social life is a big part of it, the first part of life away from parents, but still with some security, and about intellectual exploration (answering the question - what exactly do I want to be when I grow up?). Perhaps none of that is worth the lost time, but when I see it in the WSJ, my initial reaction is that it's another right wing wacko who sees college as just too many liberals with too much influence.
And he puts too much faith in certification tests as "classless", in my opinion. I used to do test prep, and like most things, the people who have the money and the time to train for the certifications have an advantage.
It's written from that perspective because college degrees are used as a proxy for job training, and most people pursue them so they can get a better job, which makes the system broken. The other benefits of the college experience don't require college anyway, and are cost-prohibitive to a lot of people.
I don't think he was arguing that nobody should do 4 years of college. Just that employers need a better vetting system.
We need to stop fooling ourselves and just flat-out have masters and apprenticeship. When the system in schools and in companies works, it boils down to this anyhow. (I'm not including prodigies that you couldn't keep from learning no matter what you did. I'm talking about those talents that wouldn't flower if they didn't fall into the right circumstance to reach their full potential.)
No, we don't. I don't want some guild or certification authority telling me I can't program for a living until I've done 2 years of "journeyman" programming and passed my licensing exams.
I'm having trouble finding it right now, but there was a good argument posted here a while back for requiring a certification proving that programmers know how to write secure code. The analogy was that the market can already sort out good chefs from bad chefs, but that there should be a basic certification to prove that you understand food safety.
The difference is that all chefs can make people sick with poor food safety, yet the vast majority of programmers are working on things where security really doesn't matter.
If we had mandatory security certifications, Reddit wouldn't exist. Nor, for that matter, would Windows. And while many of us would probably rejoice at that, I think a lot of people would be pretty pissed off if they had to use OpenBSD.
BTW, I interned at a company that does avionics/medical devices/financial software. Those industries do have strong regulations, like mandatory code reviews and traceability matrices. And that's great for what they do, but I'd hate to see the same standards applied to your Web 2.0 social bookmarking site.
The thing is, the market only sorts out egregious programmers.
The security certification is a wonderful idea! I think that would be a great place to start. (And end, perhaps.) The test for this could be entirely empirical. An applicant could be required to place $1000 in escrow, and implement a web application on the guild's servers. They would be required to add certain features. During the test, anyone would be welcome to try and hack the website. If anyone can prove that they are successful, they get the $1000. If the features all get implemented with no hacking, then the applicant gets their money back, minus the fee.
Although I did laugh, I have to ask if this was this a joke? So $1000 or $100 is what you pay (depending on if you fail or succeed)? Aside from the monetary figures you mentioned, sure it sounds like a great idea for a staffing business.
This is silly. Programming, networking, etc certifications exist: big companies like MSFT give them out if you jump through all the hoops and prove your high skillz. Fortunately for us crappy programmers on the web, companies that give a shit about those certifications care about hiring people with them, and companies that don't, don't. Yay for free markets!
More words in my mouth. In many cases, the market settles for something that just shows the hiring manager dotted their I's. (A hoop-jumping exercise that feeds another hoop-jumping exercise.) If there were certifications based on actual results in practice, this would be beneficial on many levels. It would be a way to disseminate good practices, and it would be a more direct indicator of the ability to produce results.
In other words: the market does do something, but someone could do even better.
We don't? I've been in a lot of different programming shops as a consultant, mostly in large organizations, and let me tell you -- I don't think a lot of the people out there who are programming really should be. I've had to be the hero far too many times for shops where someone didn't realize doing something was O(n^2) and doing it another way was O(n).
The industry doesn't need to the government to penalize non-guild programmers to benefit from a guild. All the guild has to do is to show that it is effective in producing competent, knowledgeable programmers. I suspect that things like employment at Microsoft have filled this niche. (Sub-optimally.) An organization that is designed to fulfill this particular purpose would be much better at its function and more robust.
A majority of US drivers think they are above average. I have met very few under-qualified programmers who realized it.
I don't know, I can see the education model being useful. I'd rather not have to submit to a guild or union (unlike some friends of mine,) but I can see the value of serving time in a real programming shop with experience and competent (hopefully) individuals as part of one's education. Of course, I think this is called an 'internship' these days.
Is that what Murray is advocating? The article I read suggested that using standardized tests would be a cheaper alternative than college -- but if you'd prefer four years of paying and not working to two years of getting paid to learn, you can at least enjoy the status quo.
Too many conclusions jumped to. Though guilds have had legal backing like this historically, I don't think you need that to have some form of benefit from a "programmer's guild."
I think you could base it entirely on empirical results -- successful programming projects being the sole measure of value.
Come to think of it, Open Source projects somewhat fill this role.
"...bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses."
So either the graduate is knowledgeable and the system did its job, or the graduate knows how to be a good member of a big bureaucratic organization and how to accomplish arbitrary things they're told to do.
Sounds like one more level of sorting, and the schools have done the job for big companies.
Agree. The causation (i.e. getting college degree makes you a much better employee because of specific knowledge learned) might be a myth but the correlation (people with at least passable intelligence/work ethic and the dedication and ability to do what they're told, which are the primary traits wanted by corporations, are more likely to get a college degree) is so strong that it still has a lot of value to employers, even if they don't fully understand why.
Yeah, but not all organizations just want "a good member of a big bureauratic organization." Some of them actually care about getting (or growing and keeping) high-performing individuals. It's just that people who work at companies like that don't do a lot of complaining online, so they're pretty invisible.
I find the whole "college is..." or "college is not..." to be a problematic mindset in itself. For example, why not develop social skills in high school? Many of the student leaders I know from college started as high school student leaders.
Now we're talking about "HS is..." or "HS is not..." or "HS sucks." Why wait until HS? Now we're talking about MS... then lower school. Then it's just your entire life as an individual.
I like the idea of a loose education system where there aren't Nth-grade, Xth-year students, but simply students who have proved themselves in a particular set of studies. For those with the time to study, take one year. For those without, take ten years. Then there won't be any of these ideas of what college should or should not do.
Many schools are moving towards this. You can take some HS courses in MS if you've demonstrated the motivation, and you can take college courses in HS as well.
Having just graduated college, I see it as the most valuable experience of my life. I've defined who I am and what I want to do in the past four years, and learned a ton about engineering on the side.
The problem with social skills, is that they're learned in a cultural/social context. For many, the desired quality and kind of context is only available in small doses (with a particular group) whose effect is diluted by the larger context which can only be corrected by moving somewhere else.
Like it or not, college is about more than job training. For a lot of people the social life is a big part of it, the first part of life away from parents, but still with some security, and about intellectual exploration
It's funny, but I got a whole lot more of that stuff after dropping out. Am I really going to learn more from a place where I don't pay the rent, buy stuff with a meal card, work fifteen hours per week but don't necessarily have to show up, and am surrounded by proto-alcoholics? If you can deduce the modern college experience from any sane set of first principles, I'd like to hear about it -- but it seems to me that Murray is right. If we didn't have college, and you tried to invent it, you'd be rightly denounced as a loon.
And he puts too much faith in certification tests as "classless", in my opinion. I used to do test prep, and like most things, the people who have the money and the time to train for the certifications have an advantage.
Murray has crunched the numbers rather than counting the anecdotes; studying for the SAT can raise scores a lot at first, but if you studied two hours per day for 150 days, your expected score increase would be seventy points. Murray cites this (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetai...), which I haven't read. It would be a good plan to introduce your convictions to some data, so you can back up your assertion with something besides "I used to do test prep, and envy rich people too much to wonder what I can learn from them."
Perhaps none of that is worth the lost time, but when I see it in the WSJ, my initial reaction is that it's another right wing wacko who sees college as just too many liberals with too much influence.
You also might be happier if 1) you didn't assume that the newspaper that recently published a Barbara Ehrenreich piece (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121380066376984...) was irredeemably right-wing, and 2) if you considered the possibility that since college professors are overwhelmingly liberal (http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_cellasreview_arc...) and nearly impossible to fire, they would consist of a greater than average number of liberals who do, indeed, have too much influence.
Was school really the important part, if different people get different results depending on what they do?
That part of my comment was addressing the idea that school prepares 18-22-year-olds for the real world. I think the real world prepares them a lot faster.
Yes, school is important. As someone who is going into their sixth year as a graduate student, I've given this some thought.
School is one of the few times when it's okay to just learn without also producing something of value. What I chose to learn was computer science and some math and physics. In grad school, I've learned a lot about high performance systems. While this knowledge and related skills are highly valued in the real world, very few real work entities would be willing to pay me to acquire it.
It's tough to learn this stuff on the side. You really need to devote years to learning to be useful. During that time, you're not producing much of value to the outside world. My PhD dissertation will not represent six years of effort; more like one or two. But it took four years of learning to be in the position that I could do that level of work in a year or two.
If you take a CS undergrad, some company somewhere can probably get use of them at their current skill level. But that company will have little interest in paying them to continue learning.
Regarding what you put out versus what you put in, that's true of everything.
School is one of the few times when it's okay to just learn without also producing something of value.
That is so weird to me. When I was in school, I spent about eight hours a day, five days a week learning stuff that had little practical application. And now that I work, I spend, oh, six hours a day seven days a week learning stuff with little practical application. Bizarrely, the fact that I'm neither paid nor graded for learning has not stopped me.
Maybe school is good for people who are unable to learn without those incentives, but I'm not sure how much of the population shares that problem. After all, for schools to have something useless to teach, they needed someone to get the ball rolling by learning that stuff before schools existed. So it's been possible in the past.
I'm not sure if you understood me. If you're paid for your work, I assume you're also producing something.
School is the only time we're allowed to learn without also producing something. You can learn on the job, but there's an expectation that you will produce something as well. They're not paying you to learn for your sake, they're paying you to learn so you can produce something for them. This does not exist in school; everything you produce is only for pedagogical purposes.
I don't know why you brought up incentives; my point has nothing to do with them. My point has to do with time and money. Since you produce nothing of value in school, no one will pay you for it. So you're deferring income so that you can devote all of your time to learning - school is an investment.
I really don't understand you. I have a shelf full of computer science and math textbooks behind me, which I read even though 1) I do not need them for work, and 2) I am not currently in school. I don't produce anything of value by reading The Art of Computer Programming, but I am still 'allowed' to do it. Nobody is paying me or permitting me, even though the stuff I do is still for pedagogical purposes.
I assume that most of your day is still spent producing something, which you get paid for. In school, such time does not exist; it's all learning. I think you're focused on incentives, which is orthogonal to my point. Regardless of why you learn (ranging from for your own enrichment or for practical gain), having a few years set aside to do nothing but learn means you will learn more.
If you somehow have a job where you are allowed to do anything you want and produce nothing, then I'd like to know who you work for.
Surely you don't mean that you spend all of your time at school doing thins with no productive value. I assume that you were still able to complete basic chores, personal hygiene tasks, etc. I spend more time on non-learning tasks while I'm at work, but it is feasible to work hard for a while, stop to learn things, work hard for a while again, etc. You seem pretty smart, so it's surprising that you'd doubt your ability to ever save up enough money to take some time off from working.
The Wall Street Journal may or may not be irredeemably right-wing, but I'd bet on it. Also, looking at Murray's record on number-crunching, and I do mean The Bell Curve, betting on it to be anything more than BS with lipstick would be a losing proposition.
I don't understand your comment. Do you know who Barbara Ehrenreich is? If they are irredeemably right-wing, what is she doing on their editorial page?
Murray considers himself a libertarian; Ehrenreich is a socialist. Neither is strictly 'right-wing'.
And which errors from The Bell Curve are repeated in his column? I didn't spot any glaring mistakes, but perhaps I did not read as carefully as you did.
You said "Murray has crunched the numbers rather than counting the anecdotes" which may be true, but he crunched the numbers in The Bell Curve too.
Given The Bell Curve, none of his number-crunching statements are believable, without close scrutiny.
I do know who Barbara Ehrenreich is, and I agree much more with her than with Murray, but calling her a socialist is typical political name-calling.
Edit: changed "right-wing" in the last sentence to "political" as being more accurate and less political.
Okay, so because he made unspecified errors in a book he cowrote years ago, we should not believe what some other social scientists have researched. After all, Murray has cited them!
but calling her a socialist is typical political name-calling.
Apparently you don't 'know who Barbara Ehrenreich is':
She is a a member of the Democratic Socialist party. Her Wikipedia page mentions that she's a socialist before it mentions that she's a writer! Calling her a socialist is like calling Obama a Democrat -- a radical redefinition of name-calling, though it does please me that merely identifying someone as a member of a leftist party is considered grievously insulting.
I spent a year at college (freelancing at the same time to support myself) and it was a tremendous waste of time. I can say with certainty that I lost maturity being there, and left feeling stupider than when I entered in the fall.
You tell me which will teach an individual more: A sheltered, friendly environment with mostly privileged peers, or living independently? I chose the latter. I interviewed for a web design job before receiving my HS diploma, got the job, and started two days after graduation. A month later, I was out on my own, paying bills, taking care of myself. Now that was a learning experience.
For people who enter school for vocational reasons, the sports and parties and alcohol and Shakespeare classes and diversity training and dormitory life and extended vacations and other activities are completely distinct from getting vocational training...ie, they are a complete waste. The 10K+/per year expense is vastly more wasteful than any cert training...
> For a lot of people the social life is a big part of it
I think a little discussed reason college is such a big deal in America is because most communities are so socially and architecturally dysfunctional. Many colleges provide what a proper town/city is supposed to: public spaces and facilities, walkability, organizations with civic and social functions, etc. It's only because people graduate and go live in alienating suburban asteroid belts or in soulless political-machine big cities that they idealize college so much.
College isn't so great, it's just adult life in most of America sucks. But it's not like that every where.
p.s.
The oft repeated "college rounds people out" line desperately needs data. I think it's a load of bullshit.
Agreed. I think the problem is that towns and cities are run as democracies, where every faction tries to twist the government to do it's own special interest. Thus homeowners will put in place 1/4 acre per house zoning laws, developers will get rights to build big box stores, etc. No one looks out for the whole. A university's only goal is to maximize the satisfaction of its students in order to boost its own revenue. It does this amazingly well.
This is better than most "college is a waste" articles, but it repeats a common mistake: thinking that people are hired for their skills. When I'm hiring, I don't want someone with a "web design" certificate or a "Python programming" certificate, or (worse) a "sales and marketing" certificate. I want someone who is smart, passionate, loves to learn, thinks creatively, knows how to write, and is enjoyable to work with. These things can't be governed by a certificate system. Of course, they also don't correlate strongly with a college diploma. But there is some correlation, at least with some majors - give me a philosophy major over a business major any day.
And all else being equal, wouldn't the test help you? If you can, it's probably best to hire based on things like passion and creativity. But if your main python developer quits two weeks from your launch date, it might be more convenient to hire someone who already knows the language, and can prove it.
This is kind of how I feel too. I agree that a college degree may not be a good indicator of skills. But is the solution really more standardized testing? The data on standardized testing is pretty clear: It leads to teaching and learning to the test. Which is great if the test encompasses absolutely all skills and knowledge that people are supposed to have, but that's not the case.
People need to give up the idea that it's easy to evaluate people. It's not, you can't just look at some one-dimensional number. (Be it GPA or some certification score.) If you want to really know their strengths and weaknesses, you need to get to know people.
Yeah, and I think the point the author makes is that a college degree is just as bad an indicator of that as a certificate with a number on it. If you want someone with those qualities you can interview them and find out.
>I want someone who is smart, passionate, loves to learn, thinks creatively, knows how to write, and is enjoyable to work with. These things can't be governed by a certificate system.
Yea, plus, those details can change with time. People can be moody, motivated one day, slack the next. Those details can be influenced by a lot of internal & external factors. So yea, that's a good point.
I'm doing my best to prove that this is true. While I have college credits (about 60), I'm a full-time developer and part-time entrepreneur at 20. So far no need for a degree...
That's not to say I'm poorly educated by any means. I have the writing, mathematical, scientific, historical, and artistic skills needed to earn a degree. My knowledge of the Russian canon alone might be enough at a school which offered that major (Russian Literature or even World Literature). It just didn't take me four years in a restrictive environment and an empty wallet to earn it :^)
Bravo. Smart people will be smart, no matter what. Smart people with time and energy will educate themselves. Smart people with money (or the willingness to accept debt) will buy a decent education.
The most valuable part of college for me (in terms of my career prospects) was not the degree I got, although it was a good degree.
The most valuable thing about college for me was the support, money, facilities that the college provided to me while I was there. They enabled me to do plenty of things I wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
When I was at college I worked on plenty of OSS, created a web site for Nasa, and contributed to the W3C. My school paid for me to fly to a number of W3C conferences as scholarship.
I also spent an inordinate amount of time in the university library which was many times vaster and better resourced than any library I've had at any employer since. Any technical book I wanted that they didn't have would normally turn up within a matter of weeks.
Add to that a 24hr computing campus with access to mainframes around the clock. I got to experiment because I could keep my own hours and get time on the interesting hardware at 3am when sensible people were in bed.
University is not just about a degree. As many other people here have said it's about the experience (I met my wife in college) and the learning, in an environment which allows it.
What about the children of poorer families who don't have the luxury of going to college. The above would be fine if parents/students were paying the full cost of the facilities, but in most cases its government/charity subsidized.
I did study Math, and while most of the knowledge can't be used directly in my daily job as a programmer, and most of the higher math was forgotten, I was taught to think abstractly in several different ways (like algebra, math analysis, statistics, geometry etc.) All of those subject are very beneficial to study, IMHO, even if you don't apply them directly in your job.
whether or not they are relevant is besides the point, I think author isn't saying "end 4-year colleges" but rather that we should change how skills are assessed -- so that a 4 year college isn't required ... i.e you can take a test and if you pass thats it. so college could still be a valid route of developing skills (like the ones you said) but not the only route to getting a job.
A long time ago, books and educated people were extremely scarce. So, it was efficient to group as many books and educated people in the same place so that, in that particular place, they were not scarce. That place is called a "school". The scarcity that gave schools their key advantage is largely gone.
I've been saying this, almost to the exact letter, for the last 13 years. Not the "college is a waste of time" part, but the part about "we need to divorce the skill verification from the skill teaching".
That I agree with, but truthfully it is already there. CPA exam, professional engineer exam, bar exam, medical exams. What doesn't have an exam? Marketing, sales? There is a PE exam for computer engineering/science but no one takes it. Just push people to take them and it will accomplish the same thing.
It's not there because all those professional guilds legally require a college degree. It used to be you could just pass the bar and become a lawyer. The bar associations then got laws passed requiring an actual law degrees, so people took inexpensive correspondence courses. The lawyers then fought back by requiring the schools be accredited, and setting minimum rules for face time. Thus you are forced to pay very expensive law school tuition to practice as a lawyer. This pushes up the wages of the current lawyers, who got the law passed. The whole thing is a scam.
Is it a scam? Do you really want people to be able to get engineering degrees without going through the rigour of a full college education? These are the people who design airplanes and cars and powerplants. Sure maybe it works for Java programming of some BS business app, but most of the exams out there are on fields where screwing up something has major consequences.
That's what the test is for. In a law it's a scam because requiring professors that teach in person has absolutely nothing to do with learning law. You learn law from studying books and then practicing (apprenticeship). Not from professors. The same is true with almost all professions.
You actually think someone who went through "the rigour of a full college education" is any less likely to screw up than someone who passed a certification exam? I know plenty of people who coasted through a CS&E degree (Computer Science and Engineering) at my school, and I'm not sure I'd want them writing the software for "airplanes and cars and powerplants".
The point is that a degree doesn't prove much, and a certification can prove approximately as much at a significantly lower cost.
Entry level office job. B.A. or B.S. required. It would be nice to have a GEBA, just like we have a GED.
Additionally, you can't take many of the exams you just mentioned without a degree. I.e. the degree and the exams are still married, the exam is just standardized.
I personally think college-education is over rated as of today. The only reason education worked as a good model was because there was scarcity of Information and this information could be obtained only if you paid tons of money and joined college.
Today times have changed drastically, a guy sitting in remote part of Africa(with a basic internet connection) can obtain the same information which the guy in Stanford or MIT is trying to obtain.
Colleges surely had advantages a decade back like Mentors, Teachers, Abundant Information, Labs, Job Guarantee. But today Internet is replacing all these one by one and colleges today can't guarantee jobs. Unless colleges start offering something really substantial else they will have a tough time competing with internet educated population which is growing day by day.
I would go further to say that the current system is disadvantaging rich countries immensely. I typical person without a college degree is likely to think he shouldn't even attempt to seek work such as IT (it's for those college educated types), and instead heads into the local service economy (further depressing wages there), instead of earning money for the country in globally based economy.
The certification system he's talking about would massively accelerate global outsourcing of US jobs.
ISO 9000 certification in the 80s and 90s played a huge role in sending US manufacturing overseas. People were reluctant to believe that factories in various second and third world countries could be just as good. Then the certs proved pretty well that they were!
Same deal now with personnel. Employers are sometimes reluctant to believe Indians or Vietnamese are on par with a four year American college grad. Sufficiently standard tests would prove they are.
In other words, the US has coasted on reputation in a lot of ways and empirical approaches can damage that reputation.
But you're assuming outsourcing is bad for individuals in the US, whereas most indications are the opposite, it increases their wealth. The point about the nongrad IT worker is that he would be able to create more wealth than he would as a local service worker (in the same way as offshore workers do). Increasing production (and hence wealth) from all workers, whether offshore or in US is better for society than allowing inefficiencies and protectionism to prevail.
The rust belt was not sustainable. From about 1945 until the 70's, the US had an unfair competitive advantage over the rest of the world: our industrial capacity wasn't blown up. This led to an artificially large manufacturing sector in the US (we were exporting goods to the rest of the world). Once they fully recovered (roughly the 70's), there was no need for this.
If you want to bring back the rust belt, you'll probably need to start a large war in Europe and Asia...
The decreasing cost of manufactured goods, increase in quality of them, and the increase in GDP that has occurred over the past 30 years. (You can argue much of this can be attributed to technology, but a large share of it is due to outsourcing - most things in dollar stores and walmart are not due to technology but outsourcing).
The rustbelt is caused by their inability to compete with the better quality Japanese cars (and Japanese salaries are higher than in the rustbelt, you can't make the cheap labour for that).
Real median wages are flat or down in the US for the last 30 years.
You can talk about the theoretical upsides to global free trade all you want. I'm a believer. But 2 billion people jumped into the labor pool and the reality in the US is that they made a wave that drowned a lot of people. Real wages are depressed. That's not to say there's any real alternative to full open participation in the global market, but your free-market cheer and pom-poms don't capture the full reality from a US worker perspective.
I don't think you can blame globalization for that,
-technology has eliminated many jobs
-companies have become more efficient at "desklling" workers into more narrowly defined roles (and so paying lower wages)
if you want to attack free markets, why not go further and advocate barriers on inter-state commerce within the US.
The problem with this plan is that it will just make every college vocational. Why waste money on classes that don't apply for your certificate? Why spend time playing with classes that could lead you to a different certificate when you are already 20% done with this one?
Or better yet, why not get a couple princeton review books to pass the test? I passed 35 credits of AP exams in high school, all with 5 out of 5s, and several without taking the course. When I actually took some classes in college based on that, I quickly found out how little you need to know to pass a test.
I met an Irish engineer. He said that all of his classes in college had to do with engineering. If he wanted to study the Classics, the attitude was that he could just go and do that in his own time.
Personally, I think this is better. If you try to legislate breadth in your students, then you end up just making a mockery of what you're trying to teach. You end up accomplishing the opposite of what you were trying to do.
I spent a few years teaching Computer Science 101/102 as a TA. A whole lot of my students were in Journalism, Communications, or Criminology or some area like that and just trying to get their math requirement out of the way. My conclusion in retrospect: to most of my students, this was largely just a bureaucratic exercise.
If you want true students, you need to find the students that have the interest and desire.
The problem with this plan is that it will just make every college vocational.
The problem with this view is that some people just want the vocational part, and bundling it with something they don't want, but for which they will be charged, just makes them worse off. Being able to buy A or B is better than only being able to buy A and B.
It would be pretty annoying if some forward-thinking politician realized that a keyboard is worthless without a computer, and unilaterally banned the sale of keyboards that didn't come with a computer. But that would be a terrible plan.
Yeah, but if college's function of "preparing you for work" is taken over by vocational schools, it's not clear that there will still be a market for our current conception of college.
And I'm sure that a lot of you will say that that's an indication that college is mostly a waste, but I don't think that that follows, necessarily; although I haven't been to college yet I feel vaguely that it'll be more rewarding than most things that I could think of to do otherwise, and certainly that it'll be more rewarding than most things that I would in all likelihood do otherwise.
If colleges provide a service that's worth the price they have to charge, they'll stick around. But arguing that we should avoid credentials and vocational school because they could compete with college is like wanting to ban hybrids because you look forward to driving an SUv, and figure that if hybrids become too popular, SUVs will be obsolete and you won't get one. A rational person would ask why your preference for SUVs over hybrids should force everyone else to be wasteful.
But what if everybody (or almost everybody) prefers SUVs? And I guess we need to extend the analogy a little more: what if everybody needs a car, and their parents are buying them one, and the parents choose primarily based on cost, and hybrids cost less? But everybody wants an SUV. Maybe everybody wants an SUV to the extent that they'd be willing to personally pay for the difference in price, if they had the money. Oh, and maybe the SUVs are actually better for the environment.
The point of the analogy was that you are trying to say that you have so looked forward to the old, stupid, obsolete system that you'd like to hold progress back a few years so you can experience it. I think that's ridiculous, and that if we were talking about how you wanted to manufacture buggy whips or VCRs, it would be obvious that getting in the way of cars and DVDs would not be worth it.
If you can give me some reason that the existence of something that performs most of the functions of college, but that is cheap enough to be a viable opportunity for people who work, or people who want to get their credentials faster or whatever, is such a threat to college that it must be stopped -- but college, despite its vulnerability to better ideas, is still worth keeping around -- I'd like to hear about it.
But that might be convoluted. So here's what I would ask: if we had the credentialing system and no college, how would you pitch the concept of a modern college to the typical VC?
Requiring everyone to learn some nonpractical things is a waste of societal resources. If some people want to learn something just for the sake of it, they could join reading groups/attend lectures on their own time.
"The problem with this plan is that it will just make every college vocational."
The system is supposed to be separate from college. That's the whole point. That way kids who don't want to go to college can still get a good job, and colleges can be even better for those who do go because they don't have to teach job skills.
I'm sure most of us know that good test performance does not always equal good job performance. Whenever I see a resume in front of me that has a score on a test (ie. GRE score) I almost always get disinterested in the candidate, even if the test is related to the job. I do think that these test scores can show a level of competency in showing one's ability to study/work hard for a test and do well. However, doing well on a professional test does not mean you would be good at working in that profession. I'm sure we all know people from college/school who were great at testing/studying and getting good grades but still have a hard time in non-academic environments.
College is only as useful as you want it to be. If you want to 'coast' for four years and meet/network with a lot of people, do it. If you want to study your tail off in a difficult field and try and get a good job afterward, do it. Just do not complain afterward that college did not prepare you to get a job or that college did not make enough friends for you afterward.
I think someone should start a secret society of young women enrolled in institutions of higher learning. The upperclassmen leaders of these secret societies would observe the freshmen males, searching for individuals of exceptional potential hampered by extreme awkwardness and sexual insecurity. They'd arrange to ensnare these freshmen in a series of relationships as a part of a program to groom them for leadership and to inoculate them against misogyny.
Maybe they could call themselves the "Bene Gesserit?"
Great article, though my day-dreamed educational system would be a little bit different. But who is to say which one's better until you implement them.
On the same note, High school and middle school are pretty much a waste of time. In fact, any kind of system that categorize kids into homogeneous age groups are socially and psychologically unhealthy. How can kids learn form their peers if all of them have just about the same exposure and experience in the world? That's why we have all these angsty kids, because no knows better.
I've been teaching on the side for a few years. And from my experience, when I mix kids of different ages, they assume instinctual responsibilities (almost tribal). Older kids become more authoritative and care-giving. Younger kids become more attentive and respectful. This kind of social learning is both top-down and bottom-up.
I understand the importance of school as a social environment. But if it's going to be homogeneous and unrepresentative of the real world, no real social skills will come out of it.
Don't take my word for it. I'm sure we all have interacted with college grads who are clueless about the real world.
"A passing [CPA exam] score indicates authentic competence"
This is misleading, because the word authentic has a specific meaning in psychometrics. It means that the evaluation of competence is based off of things like observations, student journals, portfolios, inquiry projects, exhibits, hands-on activities, essays, performances, etc. A standardized test score is not considered to be an authentic measure of competence.
Well he is probably the world's most famous psychometrician and the article is about psychometrics. I suspect he is using the word incorrectly on purpose because he doesn't like the definition. It's kind of like if a famous conservative wrote a book about the flat tax and titled the book Progressive Taxation.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but isn't this just the common use of rhetoric and re-definition that one would find in commentary?
I think your example is a great one. The conservative would then proceed to argue that his definition of "progressive taxation" is adequate for the discussion at hand.
I'm probably just making a big deal out of nothing. I'm just flummoxed at why his own technical field's definition has anything to do with communication directed at a non-technical audience.
Perhaps he used it like that to get the response you gave? That would make sense.
Good article. Fact of the matter is that academia has evolved over the decades into an ideologigal monolith. A stifling regiment of ideological political correctness.
In current times most young people would be well advised to avoid Universities and Colleges. After 4 years of classes they come out dumber than when they went in.
This is a self-solving problem one way or another.
The employers that use low-information predictors of productivity will go out of business and whatever system the remaining businesses are using will drive the educational system.
Either that, or the inevitably-higher credit standards in the near future will help to give the college system a population haircut, which will weed out quite a few of those who don't really mean it (and unfortunately, some of those who do...).
I just recently saw a video of TED from Sir. Ken Robinson who said School's kill Creativity, Really a great talk and worth seeing. Hope some of you find it useful.
My college degree means nothing on paper professionally, but meant everything to my abilities to meet business and computing challenges. I didn't study computing at all. I don't expect that my experience is much different from others who have Liberal Arts degrees and found joy in technology.
I've worked with many people who have degrees and certification in computing and many who don't. As a result of my experience, I've rejected resumes from people who have studied computing and sought professional certifications solely, in preference to people who have English degrees and weird hobbies. Professional experience is supreme, but after that, I want a broad mind to tackle the problems at hand. While that's highly prejudicial, I've found it a very rewarding way to approach a stack of resumes.
It sounds like you're just looking to hire people like you. You probably find it rewarding to approach a stack of resumes like that because every person you find who has a similar background as you is a validation of your own path.
I've found it rewarding by seeing the team I helped hire, some of them eight years ago, do amazing things. I suppose, though, it might be time to speculate about my motivations and need for validation.
Considering that the maxim for the new millenium is "Safe is risky and risky is safe" I think he might be doing the best thing. All in all, it seems like today the best way to approach things is to be different and his hiring policies are definitely different. Sure, he might fail, but would he be able to succeed if he did the same thing as everything else?
I'm sure there might be problems with choosing the wrong criteria, but I can't see how "elitism" in itself can be a cause of problems in the hiring process.
Yes, I can see that as a possible problem. I've seen fewer cliqueness in this crew (prehaps because they all come from varied educational and professional backgrounds), than I have in groups pulled mostly from tech academics and companies.
I'm torn between two somewhat incompatible visions:
1. College should train you for some sort of career and should do so in the most rigorously objective way possible. In this view, certifications provide the gold standard of objectivity.
2. College should help you become well rounded, responsible adults. By which I mean, able to reason about complex issues, having some background in history, science, philosophy, literature, the arts, a basic understanding of subjects that affect our lives, such as economics, etc... In other words, the sort of people who desire to remain informed about political events, who could weigh several candidates for office and be able to apply some sort of selection criteria beyond a mere gut instinct. In other words, the sort of people that keep democracy on track.
In the UK, the higher education system is as you desribed in point 1, you get a degree in exactly your subject. yet they have no shortage of people who can debate on the issues you mention in point 2.
The current system is the continuation of a historical establishment, which is the same with many other human-created systems. They will always be flawed, but humans will also be slow to react to changes; the larger the group, the older the establishment, the more resistant to change.
While it is atrociously suboptimal, it's a bit much to call it a waste of time.
Incidentally, I happened upon this article this morning and like the idea very much: the Grandes écoles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_%C3%89coles
Does anybody have any related stories to tell?
I went to one of these, so i think i know about it.
I think it creates another kind of establishment, and not a very likeable one at that. It's very much like the Ivy leagues colleges in the US. People are not out of school that they are already so very certain of their own worth, it's despicable.
Agreed. Seeing comments here and elsewhere, one wonders if people actually care about quality education just because it's a good thing? How about access lab facilities, the ability to interact with other smart people, hopefully to learn from good teachers, or do quality research? College and grad school was all that for me. Was it perfect. Not at all, but given a choice, I'd do it again.
A better way to teach how to learn to learn, would be to teach a class in exactly that. The motivational speaker industry does a better job in "meta" subjects, such as "getting things done", "how to be successful", than college does. Paul Graham's essays for startups are more effective than college courses in entrepreneurship.
Well its probably true, look at most liberal arts majors, they spend 4 years learning and then go back to the same job at GAP because they can't find any job in their field.
It seems like going to college is a requirement now, where people go there because its expected of them. They don't go to learn, they go there to put in the time(like in highschool)
The example of certification-based credentials mentioned in the article, the CPA exam, is a bad one since you have to have a bachelor's degree in order to take the exam. It doesn't matter if you could ace it on your first try, most state accountancy boards require 150 hours of college credit before you can take the CPA. This restricts the supply of accountants and keeps accountant salary high.
There was a movement a few years back to increase the requirement to a full Master's degree. It's totally unnecessary to be a good accountant.
I dropped out of the JC I was attending and just started finding better ways of doing things (read: "developed technical solutions") at each company I worked for, regardless of what the position was. Although I would like to make more money, I trained myself, followed my interests, and now - relatively speaking - I have an above average salary, both for my current position and the region I live in.
College, in my case, was totally unnecessary. Yet I'm a DBA/Developer for a respected Fortune 500 company.
I think this is a little excessive. It really implies that someone got a strong high school education. A lot of the public high schools where I grew up sent a small portion of students to college just because the school system was hurting very much. Most students didn't feel like they had learned much until after their first years in college or a stint at the local junior college.
College, more than being proof of a person's intelligence, is proof that you can jump through the hoops deemed appropriate by your "higher ups" (aka professors). Understandably, some employers consider this a desirable trait in employees. I call those employers Fascists :P
College degrees should be your GPA with the degree title underneath. I guess it's a hard sell for college when your degree is only worth something significant when it has a 3.5 or greater on it though...
I think I can bring another point of view to this discussion.
I'm currently 22, and have never been to college. I'm a smart kid, and have always had a passion for learning - but went through some rough times during and after high school that I'm just coming out of. I currently make most of my income from doing simple freelance coding work, and live with a group of people in something of a music / art commune.
I would love to go get a formal education, but I wouldn't want to attend a college where I was not being pushed to my fullest. I'm capable of learning on my own, and do so pretty much everyday, but feel that I could benefit greatly from being in an environment where other people are learning the same things, and where there was at least one person who had a lot more experience in whatever field was being studied than the class did.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of college courses that I've seen that deal with areas that I currently feel I could spend the rest of my life working with are rather poor. In the town I live in, I know at least one person with a BS in "comp-sci" who had never been exposed to the concept of a finite state machine, never been exposed to the concept of "first class functions", and had no practical experience with anything other than cut-and-paste java development, or similar cut-and-paste php development. I know that this is not the case at every college, but it seems to be becoming more of the norm than not.
I'm at a point where I can either continue doing hellishly boring freelance jobs until I make enough money to drop off the map for a while and develop something really useful to a lot of people, or I can go the route of putting myself in debt to go to college with the hopes that I can excel enough to either get noticed / hired by a company that is doing interesting work, or get a job that would allow me to pay off my debt, work for a year or two, and then again start working on software that would be useful to a lot of people.
Because of what I've seen of most colleges and their courses in most of the areas that I've been in, I tend to feel that I would be wasting a good four years of my life in most colleges.
I have some noticeable gaps in knowledge, specifically in maths, that I would like to fill (and am working on filling, thanks Knuth and friends for writing Concrete Mathematics - it's a wonderful start.)
Largely, the question for me is one of quality of education. I do not want to pay people to give me busy work for four years. I don't want to be paying for textbooks on core material that hasn't changed in decades and only differs from the previous versions by what order the chapters are in, or what order the questions are in.
What I want to do is learn to the best of my ability, and apply what I learn to the best of my ability. I think that a college environment very well could provide the means for that, but I have serious doubts that it is providing that for most students. Part of me doubts that most colleges even intend to provide that sort of environment.
I can see that degrees are starting to matter a lot less, at least in the programming industry. I for one hope that that trend continues, and we get a nice influx of employers who are looking to pay people to learn and apply their learnings to solving practical problems.
College is an aspect of upper- and upper-middle-class life (formerly) that has replicated on account of the status and advantage once conferred by the college degree. Now it's a requirement for a large set of jobs, most of which wouldn't even be considered desirable.
Is college a massive waste of time and money for a lot of people? Probably. I think it's useless and unfair to put a person through college and then have him end up in a job that does not involve the level of autonomy and intellectual challenge that college led him to expect. Since society has not evolved to the point where good jobs are abundant, it's hard to see any good reason for more than 5-10% of people to have college educations.
One has to examine the motivations behind the proliferation of higher education. The far left supports widespread college education under the belief that if lower- and middle-class people have the benefit of a liberal education, they'll demand good jobs and become "Angry Young (Wo/)Men" if they don't get them and, therefore, evolve into revolutionaries who will overthrow the status quo. The corporate right likes it because the colleges provide companies with a sorting mechanism, the costs of which are paid by the people being sorted rather than the corporate "users". The center supports widespread college education under the guise of increasing social equality. It's obvious that an idea with such support from both the wings and the center will be implemented.
Also, there are the goals of the academics. In the 1950s, professors widely believed that a merger between the academy and the larger capitalistic society would improve their social position. As they saw it, rule of society by educational institutions seemed to be the next logical step after rule by the church until the Enlightenment, by governments up to World War I, and finally by business corporations in the XX-c. They got their desired "merger" but Mammon, being larger and meaner, won and turned the academy to its needs, rather than vice versa.
And he puts too much faith in certification tests as "classless", in my opinion. I used to do test prep, and like most things, the people who have the money and the time to train for the certifications have an advantage.