Why I canceled my college subscription(joshstrange.com)
joshstrange.com
Why I canceled my college subscription
http://www.joshstrange.com/2012/03/21/why-i-canceled-my-college-subscription/
18 comments
>There's been a rash of Anti-College sentiment around this place lately
It's no different than the general anti-intellectual sentiment growing in the US. The feeling that you can learn it all on your own without anyone telling or anyone's help is what is driving so many peoples thought processes recently.
That people looked at and treat higher education as just job training and nothing more doesn't help either.
It's no different than the general anti-intellectual sentiment growing in the US. The feeling that you can learn it all on your own without anyone telling or anyone's help is what is driving so many peoples thought processes recently.
That people looked at and treat higher education as just job training and nothing more doesn't help either.
...anti-intellectual sentiment growing in the US. The feeling that you can learn it all on your own without anyone telling or anyone's help...
How is the idea that you can use your own intellect and educate yourself anti-intellectual?
How is the idea that you can use your own intellect and educate yourself anti-intellectual?
I think the anti-intellectual sentiment is a bit broader. I'd define it as, "Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do."
The anti-intellectual movement is the belief that everyone is biased, and since everyone is biased their scientific position is no more correct than mine.
This started more than a decade ago, and I used to joke that one day people would say, "Science and Nature are left wing rags". About three months ago I actually had a debate where someone said almost exactly that -- "All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!"
I love self-education (although I'm of the camp that believes all education is self-education, even when you go to college) -- but the anti-intellectual movement is taking a fringe left-wing pursuit from the 60s (relativism) and making it mainstream for the right-wing in this century.
The anti-intellectual movement is the belief that everyone is biased, and since everyone is biased their scientific position is no more correct than mine.
This started more than a decade ago, and I used to joke that one day people would say, "Science and Nature are left wing rags". About three months ago I actually had a debate where someone said almost exactly that -- "All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!"
I love self-education (although I'm of the camp that believes all education is self-education, even when you go to college) -- but the anti-intellectual movement is taking a fringe left-wing pursuit from the 60s (relativism) and making it mainstream for the right-wing in this century.
"Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do."
Just because you've studied something your entire life doesn't make you right 100% of the time.
"All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!"
The problem? Many scientific studies are also political in nature and slant to one way, which is why I start to question many of them. I can see the bias 10 miles away and most people just read it as fact.
You make it sound almost like a religion: I'm not to question the supreme leader (people who are smarter than I am because they've studied a topic their entire lives), I just need to follow it. I will never think this way. Sorry.
I am in no way anti-intellectual. I just refuse to be force-fed things by people claiming to be smarter than me.
Just because you've studied something your entire life doesn't make you right 100% of the time.
"All those papers published in science journals are by Democrats!"
The problem? Many scientific studies are also political in nature and slant to one way, which is why I start to question many of them. I can see the bias 10 miles away and most people just read it as fact.
You make it sound almost like a religion: I'm not to question the supreme leader (people who are smarter than I am because they've studied a topic their entire lives), I just need to follow it. I will never think this way. Sorry.
I am in no way anti-intellectual. I just refuse to be force-fed things by people claiming to be smarter than me.
The problem paul is that this same level of criticality isn't enforced uniformly. Many, if not most, of those same people who doubt anything that comes out of Harvard, MIT, or CalTech as Democratic propaganda will cite Rush Limbaugh as a reputable authority on virtually anything. CalTech says that a certain nuclear facility has problems, Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech are lying."
I don't know if Wiles did or did not prove FLT. I've seen the proof, don't understand it. Do I believe it -- I believe that a good faith convincing effort has been made. For most things I know in life that is also what I believe. I haven't confirmed really anything about the periodic table or much about quantum physics our sun or even more basic things like the gravitational pull of things not as large as the Earth. I do generally believe what others have told me (and the fact that they "say" they've done experiments), especially if they have a history of telling me things that are consistent with other things in my life.
And to be clear it's not about people claiming to be smarter than you. It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge.
I don't know if Wiles did or did not prove FLT. I've seen the proof, don't understand it. Do I believe it -- I believe that a good faith convincing effort has been made. For most things I know in life that is also what I believe. I haven't confirmed really anything about the periodic table or much about quantum physics our sun or even more basic things like the gravitational pull of things not as large as the Earth. I do generally believe what others have told me (and the fact that they "say" they've done experiments), especially if they have a history of telling me things that are consistent with other things in my life.
And to be clear it's not about people claiming to be smarter than you. It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge.
"Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech at lying."
See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up.
"It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge."
You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut).
A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up.
"It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge."
You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut).
A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
> You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
No. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who funds it. So long as they're releasing all the papers[1] and the data[2] you can check the results yourself.
[1] unethical scientists will do many studies and only release the ones that confirm the results they want to find.
[2] often data is hidden somewhere and not available.
No. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who funds it. So long as they're releasing all the papers[1] and the data[2] you can check the results yourself.
[1] unethical scientists will do many studies and only release the ones that confirm the results they want to find.
[2] often data is hidden somewhere and not available.
Of course it's the evil Rush Limbaugh's fault.
That's fine - a questioning attitude is great. When someone says "This research shows us X, Y and Z" it's a useful skill to look at the research and spot any flaws in the methods or the stats or the write up.
Anti-intellectualism is not that. Anti-intellectuals will say things like "I don't need to read the research, that scientist gets money from $CORPORATION and thus nothing they say can be trusted. That's why climate change is bogus." or they say "So what if that research has proven a link between $FOODSTUFF and $DISEASE? So called studies come out all the time saying this or that are dangerous. That's why cigarettes are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be."
People know very little about the scientific method ("Yeah, but that's just like a "theory"" they say, scornfully.) and scientific research is often mangled by journalists or politicians. (Also, unfortunately, by scientists needing a bit more funding.) But, worse, many people don't want to know anything about science, preferring to regard it all as too complicated or for boffins or dangerous. ("I don't want chemicals in my food!")
Anti-intellectualism appeals to fringe "science", to quack "medicine", to wishy-washy pseudo-religious idiocy, and to religious fundamentalism.
And it's not new, either. People have been railing against it for years. See, for example, "The Underground Grammarian" and this essay "Hunger in America". (scroll down a bit.)
(http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm)
Anti-intellectualism is not that. Anti-intellectuals will say things like "I don't need to read the research, that scientist gets money from $CORPORATION and thus nothing they say can be trusted. That's why climate change is bogus." or they say "So what if that research has proven a link between $FOODSTUFF and $DISEASE? So called studies come out all the time saying this or that are dangerous. That's why cigarettes are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be."
People know very little about the scientific method ("Yeah, but that's just like a "theory"" they say, scornfully.) and scientific research is often mangled by journalists or politicians. (Also, unfortunately, by scientists needing a bit more funding.) But, worse, many people don't want to know anything about science, preferring to regard it all as too complicated or for boffins or dangerous. ("I don't want chemicals in my food!")
Anti-intellectualism appeals to fringe "science", to quack "medicine", to wishy-washy pseudo-religious idiocy, and to religious fundamentalism.
And it's not new, either. People have been railing against it for years. See, for example, "The Underground Grammarian" and this essay "Hunger in America". (scroll down a bit.)
(http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv08/8.5.htm)
"Those people who studied this their whole lives and have degrees and papers in journals don't know more about this topic than I do."
Insofar as it pertains to this conversation, that isn't the belief. The belief regarding college is "I can learn just as well by reading books written by the top experts as I can from listening to third rate experts talk about the topic in person."
Insofar as it pertains to this conversation, that isn't the belief. The belief regarding college is "I can learn just as well by reading books written by the top experts as I can from listening to third rate experts talk about the topic in person."
I'm not really sure what you mean. The person who posted the anti-intellectual comment was speaking about the growing tide in the US, which is very much about what I posted.
With respect to the article directly, it's really not about reading books written by top experts vs lectures from third rate experts -- unless he's reading CLR or Papadimitriou or Ullman.
Really the article is about vocational education vs a liberal arts education. The complaint isn't, "My harmonic analysis professor clearly doesn't have the understanding of a Terrence Tao". The argument is more like, "In school I'm learning about organic chemistry and b-trees, but what I really want to learn is how to use this new framework to talk to this NoSQL store to display data in this web view. Where's that class?"
With respect to the article directly, it's really not about reading books written by top experts vs lectures from third rate experts -- unless he's reading CLR or Papadimitriou or Ullman.
Really the article is about vocational education vs a liberal arts education. The complaint isn't, "My harmonic analysis professor clearly doesn't have the understanding of a Terrence Tao". The argument is more like, "In school I'm learning about organic chemistry and b-trees, but what I really want to learn is how to use this new framework to talk to this NoSQL store to display data in this web view. Where's that class?"
Evidently, because it means you won't need to rely on self-described intellectuals when you educate yourself.
The problem is when college doesn't even provide that job training. Students put their whole effort into college and then graduate without any skills employers are looking for. With massive debt from four years of loans and no one wanting to hire you, students find it harder to stomach this traditional path to a job and the American dream.
I've read a few op-eds and they mention that vocational schools in the US do provide the training employers are looking for but their status is looked down upon within society since historically this has been for "blue-collar" jobs. Well those blue-collar jobs are paying upwards of $50k which is much higher than being unemployed.
So now it's on the student. Get the degree with its pros and cons, get just the skills with its pros and cons, or do both. It's going to be harder but college is an investment, not just of money but also time and energy. If it's done properly (maybe not in the most traditional way), it will pay off for the rest of your life.
I've read a few op-eds and they mention that vocational schools in the US do provide the training employers are looking for but their status is looked down upon within society since historically this has been for "blue-collar" jobs. Well those blue-collar jobs are paying upwards of $50k which is much higher than being unemployed.
So now it's on the student. Get the degree with its pros and cons, get just the skills with its pros and cons, or do both. It's going to be harder but college is an investment, not just of money but also time and energy. If it's done properly (maybe not in the most traditional way), it will pay off for the rest of your life.
I was going to mention what I see as a growing Anti-Intellectualism in America but felt it may have veered to far off course. I think the higher-ed as job training is a real problem. I would never dream of trying to find a job in the humanities but I cherish my exposure and learning in those areas.
However, as someone pointed out below; Many people do just want job training. Perhaps, the solution is to offer traditional college and job training along side each other at the same institutions and let students pick which "track" they need / prefer.
However, as someone pointed out below; Many people do just want job training. Perhaps, the solution is to offer traditional college and job training along side each other at the same institutions and let students pick which "track" they need / prefer.
There's no need to do that when vocational colleges already exist. As others have stated here, there's a stigma against vocational colleges. Because they're not as prestigious as universities, people have the misconception that the education or training they receive at vocational colleges is somehow inferior, when in reality they serve different functions. You also have community college for when you want a more traditional college experience, but also want job training.
That people looked at and treat higher education as just job training and nothing more doesn't help either.
Actually this might be the main reason why college enrollments have gone through the roof recently, prompting the anti-college sentiment in the first place. If all you want to do is learn programming, you can do it at home too. But dorm life, liberal arts etc. might be something that you will only do when in college
Actually this might be the main reason why college enrollments have gone through the roof recently, prompting the anti-college sentiment in the first place. If all you want to do is learn programming, you can do it at home too. But dorm life, liberal arts etc. might be something that you will only do when in college
Higher education isn't just job training, but that's what many people want, especially for the cost.
Thing is, outside of the US how many computer science people will get a chance to study "the liberal arts" at college?
In the UK the idea is that you do all of your academic exploration in the 16-18 bracket and once you start college you already know what you want to do.
If you take a CS degree you will get the chance to do maybe 2 outside-of-CS modules in year 3 and most likely these will be something about IT management from the business school.
In the UK the idea is that you do all of your academic exploration in the 16-18 bracket and once you start college you already know what you want to do.
If you take a CS degree you will get the chance to do maybe 2 outside-of-CS modules in year 3 and most likely these will be something about IT management from the business school.
I agree with you. I went through Computer Science in college. While I've never worked with someone who didn't finish college, even working with people with different degrees you see where a computer science degree helps. I have friends with computer engineering degrees that had to teach themselves algorithms and algorithm analysis. Of course they did a good job at this because they were disciplined about it.
That said, every once in a while I'll say something and we either ended up having different terms for it or something they missed in their studies.
Another thing to note, while they may be able to get an entry level job now. The places I have worked required a CS degree. We tried relaxing that requirement one time with horrible results (inability to finish played into it). I'm not saying you can't be good without a degree, just saying from a company's perspective you may be a safer bet.
That said, every once in a while I'll say something and we either ended up having different terms for it or something they missed in their studies.
Another thing to note, while they may be able to get an entry level job now. The places I have worked required a CS degree. We tried relaxing that requirement one time with horrible results (inability to finish played into it). I'm not saying you can't be good without a degree, just saying from a company's perspective you may be a safer bet.
2) Deficiency in the "science" part of Computer Science (Algorithms and Theory)
This usually isn't readily noticeable to a student who thinks they aren't learning anything, but in a few years, this will be among the foundations of your skills as you move up the software value chain. Short of starting your own software company, where you'd better hire someone (or have co-founder) who does know this, its very important to have a solid understanding of algorithms and theory. Reading one or two books isn't going to give you (unless truly exceptional) the foundation that several well planned CS courses can.
This usually isn't readily noticeable to a student who thinks they aren't learning anything, but in a few years, this will be among the foundations of your skills as you move up the software value chain. Short of starting your own software company, where you'd better hire someone (or have co-founder) who does know this, its very important to have a solid understanding of algorithms and theory. Reading one or two books isn't going to give you (unless truly exceptional) the foundation that several well planned CS courses can.
Too true.
Personal anecdote: In college, I distinctly remember feeling like all the time that was spent on drilling automata theory into our heads seemed like senseless busywork. Fast forward a decade into my career, and I've come to suspect that there are two kinds of programmer: Those who choke on state machines, and those who don't.
Personal anecdote: In college, I distinctly remember feeling like all the time that was spent on drilling automata theory into our heads seemed like senseless busywork. Fast forward a decade into my career, and I've come to suspect that there are two kinds of programmer: Those who choke on state machines, and those who don't.
I think this point is a lot more salient for CS majors than other liberal arts majors. After pursuing a 4 year liberal arts degree in undergrad and now pursuing a CS graduate degree (after working in the industry some years), I can safely say from experience that I would NEVER have been exposed to a majority of the important concepts without higher education, and I think I'm much better off for it. Besides forcing a solid work ethic (science and math at the higher ed level is considerably harder than the equivalent liberal arts), the things you learn will actually be used.
I must admit that I actually just really enjoyed college. While I can appreciate the financial hardship it may impose on some -- if it doesn't for you, it's some of the best years of your life.
You'll be surrounded with peers that are your age. You'll enjoy a very equal male/female ratio (at least in your living quarters and some courses), and you get to study a broad diverse set of topics constantly. And for the most part you get to select what you study.
To steal a famous quote -- college is wasted on the young. ;-) I think if you were to ask most 30-50 year olds if they could drop most of their current responsibilities (with impunity) and go to college full time, the vast majority would.
As someone who has started start-ups, joined start ups, consulted, and worked for F100 companies -- you have your whole life to work. I wouldn't start into it a day earlier than necessary.
With that said, there may be things you love that you can do as a job and things you can do to become very rich very young. I think those opportunities are fewer and rarer than most here believe, but they do exist.
You'll be surrounded with peers that are your age. You'll enjoy a very equal male/female ratio (at least in your living quarters and some courses), and you get to study a broad diverse set of topics constantly. And for the most part you get to select what you study.
To steal a famous quote -- college is wasted on the young. ;-) I think if you were to ask most 30-50 year olds if they could drop most of their current responsibilities (with impunity) and go to college full time, the vast majority would.
As someone who has started start-ups, joined start ups, consulted, and worked for F100 companies -- you have your whole life to work. I wouldn't start into it a day earlier than necessary.
With that said, there may be things you love that you can do as a job and things you can do to become very rich very young. I think those opportunities are fewer and rarer than most here believe, but they do exist.
>I think if you were to ask most 30-50 year olds if they could drop most of their current responsibilities (with impunity) and go to college full time, the vast majority would.
No. Especially not in the "Information Age". This from someone who continues to learn every day, to steal a quote "a day without learning is like a day without sunshine". When you ignore the social-club elements of college and focus on academia, there is never a moment I would drop everything and go back to college full time (or any level of time).
No. Especially not in the "Information Age". This from someone who continues to learn every day, to steal a quote "a day without learning is like a day without sunshine". When you ignore the social-club elements of college and focus on academia, there is never a moment I would drop everything and go back to college full time (or any level of time).
The only reason I don't quit and go back to grad school full-time for a few years is that I can't afford it. I have a family to support now, and so doing that would be the height of irresponsibility.
It's not that I don't learn every single day now, because I do and I love that. But I can't focus single-mindedly on learning stuff because it's either cool or a stepping stone to learning cool stuff. That's what I miss.
It's not that I don't learn every single day now, because I do and I love that. But I can't focus single-mindedly on learning stuff because it's either cool or a stepping stone to learning cool stuff. That's what I miss.
>It's not that I don't learn every single day now, because I do and I love that. But I can't focus single-mindedly on learning stuff because it's either cool or a stepping stone to learning cool stuff. That's what I miss.
Again, this is the "Information Age", dedicated knowledge acquisition no longer requires college. For many, traditional academia is not the most efficient means of learning anyway.
Compare and contrast RIAA/MPAA & Music/Movies with College/University & intellectualism and learning. When the former criticizes the anti-SOPA movement, we laugh and shake our heads at their absurd cries. When the later criticizes "anti-intellectualism" (which really means anti-academia), many respond as desired, by shaking their heads at the image of ignorant peasants at the gates of intellectualism with pitch forks and torches. In both cases we have old, established, and powerful institutions trying to maintain their power. While one is starting to succumb (or perhaps adapt) to a changing and innovating market, the other continues to further entrench itself while raising its prices ever skyward.
It is an interesting comparison to consider. I'll end with a pertinent quote.
"Never let formal education get in the way of your learning." -Mark Twain
Again, this is the "Information Age", dedicated knowledge acquisition no longer requires college. For many, traditional academia is not the most efficient means of learning anyway.
Compare and contrast RIAA/MPAA & Music/Movies with College/University & intellectualism and learning. When the former criticizes the anti-SOPA movement, we laugh and shake our heads at their absurd cries. When the later criticizes "anti-intellectualism" (which really means anti-academia), many respond as desired, by shaking their heads at the image of ignorant peasants at the gates of intellectualism with pitch forks and torches. In both cases we have old, established, and powerful institutions trying to maintain their power. While one is starting to succumb (or perhaps adapt) to a changing and innovating market, the other continues to further entrench itself while raising its prices ever skyward.
It is an interesting comparison to consider. I'll end with a pertinent quote.
"Never let formal education get in the way of your learning." -Mark Twain
College is important for several reasons, although I think one purpose it serves is probably the one most here despise the most -- credentialing.
I honestly don't think you can ever escape the need for credentials. It's simply a shortcut to help filter a vast pool of people. Even YC itself is a credential (ask those VCs who will "no questions asked" fund YC companies).
While you should continue to learn things in life, the ability to get a credential will always also be valued (working at Facebook, or being part of YC, or doing design under Jon Ives, etc...). At least until someone creates a brain app that can simply scan your brain to determine what you know.
I'd argue that college's biggest problems are (1) the credential isn't as valued as it could be due to lack of rigor. And (2) it's cost. But fundamentally the institution isn't deeply flawed, like say music distribution is.
I honestly don't think you can ever escape the need for credentials. It's simply a shortcut to help filter a vast pool of people. Even YC itself is a credential (ask those VCs who will "no questions asked" fund YC companies).
While you should continue to learn things in life, the ability to get a credential will always also be valued (working at Facebook, or being part of YC, or doing design under Jon Ives, etc...). At least until someone creates a brain app that can simply scan your brain to determine what you know.
I'd argue that college's biggest problems are (1) the credential isn't as valued as it could be due to lack of rigor. And (2) it's cost. But fundamentally the institution isn't deeply flawed, like say music distribution is.
But even in this age, when you can learn so much by just going to your preferred search engine and typing "learn $topic", you still can't focus exclusively on that when you also have to focus on your job, etc.
University gives you a few years to do that.
University gives you a few years to do that.
I think people remember college through rose-colored glasses---as if college is where you do whatever you want and learn whatever you want for a few years. If you're degree-seeking, and you are pursuing a decently difficult degree like Computer Science or Engineering at a competitive college, most of your courses will be planned out for you. You may have a few "electives", but they'd better not take too much time away from your required classes.
Now if you're independently wealthy and a non-degree-seeker, you really could learn whatever you wanted at whatever rate was most optimal. That's not the usual college experience. That does seem closer to a "college subscription" though.
Now if you're independently wealthy and a non-degree-seeker, you really could learn whatever you wanted at whatever rate was most optimal. That's not the usual college experience. That does seem closer to a "college subscription" though.
>I think if you were to ask most 30-50 year olds if they could drop most of their current responsibilities (with impunity) and go to college full time, the vast majority would
Where do I sign?
Where do I sign?
What's with all the 'Boo! College is bad!' posts these days? Don't get me wrong, if people find good jobs and educate themselves without going to college, more power to them. However, I dislike the tendency of some(/many) of these posts to present college as a waste of time. It's not. And that's from someone who dropped out the first time around. ;)
> What's with all the 'Boo! College is bad!' posts these days?
It's "Why I am unsubscribing" which is different from "Boo! College is bad!"
> Don't get me wrong, if people find good jobs and educate themselves without going to college, more power to them.
Isn't the article exactly about that?
> However, I dislike the tendency of some(/many) of these posts to present college as a waste of time. It's not.
Whether college is a waste of time or not depends on the college, teachers, peers, if you can afford it, what you want to get out of it, how much work you are willing to put, and a variety of other factors. Saying that "college isn't waste of time" is as meaningless as "college is a waste of time". Also, the article wasn't arguing either ways - "what didn't work for me" isn't the same as "it doesn't work."
> And that's from someone who dropped out the first time around. ;)
I am pretty sure for every "I quit my job and started my company" there are many "Don't quit your job. That's from someone who quit his job". Different people, different strokes - there isn't any universal rule of thumb.
It's "Why I am unsubscribing" which is different from "Boo! College is bad!"
> Don't get me wrong, if people find good jobs and educate themselves without going to college, more power to them.
Isn't the article exactly about that?
> However, I dislike the tendency of some(/many) of these posts to present college as a waste of time. It's not.
Whether college is a waste of time or not depends on the college, teachers, peers, if you can afford it, what you want to get out of it, how much work you are willing to put, and a variety of other factors. Saying that "college isn't waste of time" is as meaningless as "college is a waste of time". Also, the article wasn't arguing either ways - "what didn't work for me" isn't the same as "it doesn't work."
> And that's from someone who dropped out the first time around. ;)
I am pretty sure for every "I quit my job and started my company" there are many "Don't quit your job. That's from someone who quit his job". Different people, different strokes - there isn't any universal rule of thumb.
I fully support this trend of people thinking critically about college and making their own decisions about it.
However be careful when dropping out if you'll ever want to work outside the country. Most countries require a 4 year degree for work visas, and this can sometimes be onerous to get around. This is especially important for those who don't have US citizenship.
However be careful when dropping out if you'll ever want to work outside the country. Most countries require a 4 year degree for work visas, and this can sometimes be onerous to get around. This is especially important for those who don't have US citizenship.
If you treat your time in university as job training, then maybe it's not worth doing. But if you treat it as a time to learn about a whole lot of new things - including all those core subjects that so many 19-year-olds gripe about - and a time to dabble socially in environments you might not otherwise have, then it's a different matter.
The post makes reference to the author enjoying being part of a fraternity. Indeed, his blog subtitle is "the musings of an undergrad fraternity man". This is part of his identity for the moment, and now he wants to walk away from it because it's not helping him careerwise.
TL;DR: if you think education is just about your career, then you missed the point somewhere along the way.
The post makes reference to the author enjoying being part of a fraternity. Indeed, his blog subtitle is "the musings of an undergrad fraternity man". This is part of his identity for the moment, and now he wants to walk away from it because it's not helping him careerwise.
TL;DR: if you think education is just about your career, then you missed the point somewhere along the way.
TL;DR: if you think education is just about your career, then you missed the point somewhere along the way.
I agree, and you've touched on something about the changes in how college is viewed in general. College used to be about education, and laying a foundation for a lifetime of learning. Nowadays it seems to have shifted to be more about sports and partying.
I think going to college is in general a good thing, but it's up to the student to make the most out of the experience. That includes picking the right college, and not going into lots of debt just to go a party school. Perhaps most eighteen year old kids are simply not ready to make those sorts of life changing decisions.
I agree, and you've touched on something about the changes in how college is viewed in general. College used to be about education, and laying a foundation for a lifetime of learning. Nowadays it seems to have shifted to be more about sports and partying.
I think going to college is in general a good thing, but it's up to the student to make the most out of the experience. That includes picking the right college, and not going into lots of debt just to go a party school. Perhaps most eighteen year old kids are simply not ready to make those sorts of life changing decisions.
Very good article - BUT can we stop pointing to Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg as examples of dropout success? Thats 2 people. It would be much more encouraging to point to some data that infers how well college dropouts or non-degree holders as a whole do in the tech industry or in entrepreneurship.
I say this not to discourage people from dropping out of college and shooting for the moon but at the same time I think its a huge disservice for people to look at Steve Jobs and say well he did ok.
Again I support this guy - everyone has their individual path but I think in discussion we should also be considering that pursuing higher education tends to generally correlate to better success rates in business.
I say this not to discourage people from dropping out of college and shooting for the moon but at the same time I think its a huge disservice for people to look at Steve Jobs and say well he did ok.
Again I support this guy - everyone has their individual path but I think in discussion we should also be considering that pursuing higher education tends to generally correlate to better success rates in business.
You'd need to separate out different sub-sectors of the tech industry, business and entrepreneurship, as they have varying characteristics which correlate to success and failure. Some may not require university, depending on level and role, others are almost wholly dependent on being able to conduct groundbreaking or innovative research to drive competitive products.
It dedinitely makes sense to forego college for some people. However, in many scientific diaciplines (math, physics, biology, chemistry) it is virtually impossible to succeed without focused mentorship, an immersive environment, and in the case of experimental science, capital funding. I would also guess that many types of engineering require a similar atmosphere.
That is basically the reason why I find these discussions too sweeping and generalizing to be valid. What works for one person or field, might not apply to another.
In addition, for those who can afford it, college provides a tremendous general education and exploration opportunity.
That is basically the reason why I find these discussions too sweeping and generalizing to be valid. What works for one person or field, might not apply to another.
In addition, for those who can afford it, college provides a tremendous general education and exploration opportunity.
For coding and even designing systems minimal college is probably sufficient. Now in your spare time review some of that serious math, not just basic calc but real differential equations or the subtler bits of stats. Doing math is really tough after college.
The blogger clearly has a grasp of English composition, but how's his history or other broad academic topics that should be more pervasive in society? Wouldn't it be wonderful if Leno announce that they stopped doing the JayWalk segment because they couldn't stump anyone.
The blogger clearly has a grasp of English composition, but how's his history or other broad academic topics that should be more pervasive in society? Wouldn't it be wonderful if Leno announce that they stopped doing the JayWalk segment because they couldn't stump anyone.
Don't.
College should be and can be intellectually wonderful....a place to play with all kinds of deep computer science theories and really push yourself beyond the latest technology fad and stack. What are you diving into beyond your classes? Have you raided the library and net for books on information theory, parallel computing, machine learning, linear algebra, digital signal processing, etc, etc, etc? Have you found a set of fellow geeks who are doing the same - who'll push you to the very limit of your abilities?
As you develop and grow as a programmer (I'm still doing that after 20 years) you'll find again and again that really top-notch programming and problem solving is far more than the technology. That's where the real fun programming problems are - and companies will pay you a LOT to solve those problems.
BTW I did pretty much drop out of college and eventually go back. I was the classic undergrad geek who grew up hacking and programming way before college. Like you, I was bored with the course material and making good money in my part-time programming job. Now I've a computer science PhD and I've been a research scientist in world class universities.
Or putting it much shorter: You've got brains, invest your time in college to push yourself beyond just the course material. You'll make much more money in the longer term and you'll have a far more satisfying and intellectually rewarding software development job.
BTW as an alternative to dropping out, if you can (and its what I did for my undergrad) I suggest finishing your degree by night or part-time. Its hard though.
College should be and can be intellectually wonderful....a place to play with all kinds of deep computer science theories and really push yourself beyond the latest technology fad and stack. What are you diving into beyond your classes? Have you raided the library and net for books on information theory, parallel computing, machine learning, linear algebra, digital signal processing, etc, etc, etc? Have you found a set of fellow geeks who are doing the same - who'll push you to the very limit of your abilities?
As you develop and grow as a programmer (I'm still doing that after 20 years) you'll find again and again that really top-notch programming and problem solving is far more than the technology. That's where the real fun programming problems are - and companies will pay you a LOT to solve those problems.
BTW I did pretty much drop out of college and eventually go back. I was the classic undergrad geek who grew up hacking and programming way before college. Like you, I was bored with the course material and making good money in my part-time programming job. Now I've a computer science PhD and I've been a research scientist in world class universities.
Or putting it much shorter: You've got brains, invest your time in college to push yourself beyond just the course material. You'll make much more money in the longer term and you'll have a far more satisfying and intellectually rewarding software development job.
BTW as an alternative to dropping out, if you can (and its what I did for my undergrad) I suggest finishing your degree by night or part-time. Its hard though.
I recently started a CS program yet ironically for the exact same reason. I left college to focus on a career, but found after earning a ridiculous salary for my skills (single, living at home, no gf) I couldn't seem to get ahead. Everything above my pay grade required a college degree over experience, from various things like mid management to working on external web apps. The boss felt the various certifications one can acrew in addition to the degree meant one's interest in the profession was certainly genuine. I'm a bit biased and disagree, but that's where it ended.
I wonder one thing, would he as the boss of the company be more liable if he hired someone without certificate/degrees and there's a breach of data? Does the law side against the employee with the degrees and thus can be judged as having known better, or does it not matter?
I wonder one thing, would he as the boss of the company be more liable if he hired someone without certificate/degrees and there's a breach of data? Does the law side against the employee with the degrees and thus can be judged as having known better, or does it not matter?
I wonder if he would've cared where you got that degree. If you would have enrolled in night school at your local community college to get a degree in accounting or IT or whatever is available, would that have been enough to satisfy the boss?
It's infinitely easier to discuss the necessity of higher education post successful career-launch. (Did I really need to do that vs. Do I really need to finish this?)
I find it disconcerting to hear the anti-college sentiment coming directly from an about-to-drop-out college student. I suppose it is possible to find yourself, suddenly and without a degree, launching or exiting or doing something amazing, but it seems far more likely that the lack thereof (for those that decide to drop-out or never go at all,) may at some point hold you back (regardless of talent.)
I am speaking from the perspective of a drop-out. I didn't have help paying for college, but I tried to do it anyway. The demands of working full time (to pay for classes) made actually going to classes too difficult, and I failed. I was left with a tremendous amount of debt I was not able to capitalize upon, and for the next several years I paid back that debt while working from the ground up in my career field.
I hit the ceiling much faster than I anticipated - If I wanted to advance, regardless of my natural talent, I would have to go back to school. I was still paying back loans from the first go, and had to try, yet again, to manage the demands of a career and school as well. I eventually did graduate, and found that once I could check the box for that piece of paper, my opportunities for advancement evolved into true tests of my talent, not just my ability to prove I could finish something I started.
YMMV; it's easier to ask myself now: 'what did I really gain from this?' A deeper understaning of how to navigate beurocracy, a small fortune in debt, few (if any) of the skills I use on a daily basis... but the point is I can ask the question from the financially secure and comfortable seat I couldn't have gotten into any other way.
I understand that every person's path is different, and that my situation may not be the situation that Josh will find himself in. In fact, I hope that for him. Because the thought of leaving college a) so close to completion and b) that is subsidized partially by his family (leaving very little to pay off) for anything less than a six-figure exit just doesn't make sense to me.
I find it disconcerting to hear the anti-college sentiment coming directly from an about-to-drop-out college student. I suppose it is possible to find yourself, suddenly and without a degree, launching or exiting or doing something amazing, but it seems far more likely that the lack thereof (for those that decide to drop-out or never go at all,) may at some point hold you back (regardless of talent.)
I am speaking from the perspective of a drop-out. I didn't have help paying for college, but I tried to do it anyway. The demands of working full time (to pay for classes) made actually going to classes too difficult, and I failed. I was left with a tremendous amount of debt I was not able to capitalize upon, and for the next several years I paid back that debt while working from the ground up in my career field.
I hit the ceiling much faster than I anticipated - If I wanted to advance, regardless of my natural talent, I would have to go back to school. I was still paying back loans from the first go, and had to try, yet again, to manage the demands of a career and school as well. I eventually did graduate, and found that once I could check the box for that piece of paper, my opportunities for advancement evolved into true tests of my talent, not just my ability to prove I could finish something I started.
YMMV; it's easier to ask myself now: 'what did I really gain from this?' A deeper understaning of how to navigate beurocracy, a small fortune in debt, few (if any) of the skills I use on a daily basis... but the point is I can ask the question from the financially secure and comfortable seat I couldn't have gotten into any other way.
I understand that every person's path is different, and that my situation may not be the situation that Josh will find himself in. In fact, I hope that for him. Because the thought of leaving college a) so close to completion and b) that is subsidized partially by his family (leaving very little to pay off) for anything less than a six-figure exit just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think this sort of strategy really can work for anyone who wants to do something other than write code (and not really low-level systems programming, either--plain desktop and web apps, perhaps).
Science, engineering, medicine, etc: the cutting edge research is published behind paywalls and more paywalls.
A university gives you opportunities for research, a decent guarantee to employers that you know what you need to know (for this reason, GPA is important). It is so much more than what people here seem to think. You can buy textbooks online, but that's it. If that's all you consider to be "college," then you're missing the big picture.
A university gives you opportunities for research, a decent guarantee to employers that you know what you need to know (for this reason, GPA is important). It is so much more than what people here seem to think. You can buy textbooks online, but that's it. If that's all you consider to be "college," then you're missing the big picture.
[deleted]
I agree with him on one thing: if you are getting less than a 2.5 GPA, college is definitely not worth your time or money.
Much like I never urge anyone to vote who doesn't want to, I will never tell people to stay in school if they don't want to. For those that do go to college the experience is far better if your peers want to be there as much as you. People who go 'because that's what you are supposed to do' drag down the class.
Much like I never urge anyone to vote who doesn't want to, I will never tell people to stay in school if they don't want to. For those that do go to college the experience is far better if your peers want to be there as much as you. People who go 'because that's what you are supposed to do' drag down the class.
Josh, I applaud you. Don't let the people in this thread, your parents, or anyone else tell you differently, either.
I dropped out of college when I was halfway through my second year to take a full-time job in tech. I left that job less than a year later and started my own tech company. I ended up selling that business for $1.1 million when I was 26--when most of the people who graduated high school when I did were still in school!
Running your own business, especially a tech company (when you're already geeky), is some of the best education you can get. My parents cut me off financially when I dropped out of school. My mom told me it was "the worst decision I'd ever made."
But something strange happens: When you are forced to succeed, you often do. You make ends meet. I consulted building shopping carts and CMSes for customers in this new language called PHP (4.0 had just come out!) for the first couple years of running my business. Those clients became my first hosting customers, and then my tiny little hosting company beat the odds to become a Silicon Valley success story.
Now I'm doing it all over again with another startup. We have 4 full-time people here in Austin, TX. Three of us have no college degrees. But I'm pretty confident things will work out even better this time.
So avoid the naysayers, find your role models, and be driven to succeed. Start your own business, learn sales and marketing, and then hire the guys right out of college and have them work for you. (They're good folks.) And never look back.
(Here's my full story [written as of 2009]): http://www.erica.biz/2009/the-end-of-an-era/
I dropped out of college when I was halfway through my second year to take a full-time job in tech. I left that job less than a year later and started my own tech company. I ended up selling that business for $1.1 million when I was 26--when most of the people who graduated high school when I did were still in school!
Running your own business, especially a tech company (when you're already geeky), is some of the best education you can get. My parents cut me off financially when I dropped out of school. My mom told me it was "the worst decision I'd ever made."
But something strange happens: When you are forced to succeed, you often do. You make ends meet. I consulted building shopping carts and CMSes for customers in this new language called PHP (4.0 had just come out!) for the first couple years of running my business. Those clients became my first hosting customers, and then my tiny little hosting company beat the odds to become a Silicon Valley success story.
Now I'm doing it all over again with another startup. We have 4 full-time people here in Austin, TX. Three of us have no college degrees. But I'm pretty confident things will work out even better this time.
So avoid the naysayers, find your role models, and be driven to succeed. Start your own business, learn sales and marketing, and then hire the guys right out of college and have them work for you. (They're good folks.) And never look back.
(Here's my full story [written as of 2009]): http://www.erica.biz/2009/the-end-of-an-era/
I'm of the impression, that for the most part, college is about networking. The material is a side benefit that you could pick up on your own. It feels like he picked up on that(joining the fraternity) and decided the rest wasn't worth the debt.
How on earth did you end up with that impression? While it's true that it's possible to pick up the material on your own, it's the rare individual (I know one) who is actually able to do so completely--and I think this particular guy would say that he would have been much better off had he studied it in school. Teaching yourself CS (and by "CS" I definitely don't mean "building a website in PHP") is really, really hard, and learning it from an expert (in college we call them "professors") is a much more efficient way to go about it unless you're so overwhelmingly brilliant that it's easy for you.
[deleted]
Good choice!!
Udemy and Udacity can give you all you need for free!
Udemy and Udacity can give you all you need for free!
It remains to be seen whether (a) they will provide a comprehensive CS track or (b) if their offerings will remain free. Neither of those is guaranteed right now.
I'm in no way making the claim that someone can't be a very very good programmer without college, the best programmer I've ever met left college after 1.5 years, but there's a very real risk of having holes. Some of these holes, despite what people might like to believe, simply aren't going to be filled in the future.
A few holes I've seen in the awesome unschooled programmers I've worked with:
1) Inability to finish. This is a biggy.
2) Deficiency in the "science" part of Computer Science (Algorithms and Theory)
3) A lack of knowledge where the "Liberal Arts" are concerned.
(And Others)
Maybe all of these things aren't important and maybe some of them can be learned later. However, I think people who skip college will be less likely to spend the time and energy necessary to learn these things (In the same way people who put off school for a job are less likely to attend school).
It also seems that the Theory needs to be paired with the Liberal Arts and the competent programmer in order to make a really exceptional programmer.
All that said, I think this backlash is really just the front end of a massive paradigm shift in the way the western world views / does education so we'll just have to wait and see.
EDIT: It seem that leaving college early could be indicative of either a) Already getting everything you could out of it or b) an inability to finish.