| ▲ | rahimnathwani 7 hours ago |
| Many (most?) people go to college primarily for the piece of paper, not for the educational and social experience. |
|
| ▲ | jswelker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| And resultingly, if you do go to college and immerse yourself in the educational experience, you come out with superpowers compared to your peers. Getting companies to see those superpowers in a hiring pipeline of course is a different story |
| |
| ▲ | petesergeant 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do American colleges not give degree grades? In the UK your degree class (grade) is moderately important for your first job | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | American colleges give out a GPA, which used to mean something but has now been inflated to the point of meaninglessness. 60% of my college class 10 years ago had a 3.5/4 or higher. The median grade at Harvard is an A. I am told that since COVID, B grades and below now require a written explanation by the professor at several schools. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Given that the bar for getting into Harvard is rather high these days, shouldn't we expect the median grade in Harvard to be fairly high? If C students aren't allowed into Harvard these days, doesn't it make sense they aren't giving out Cs? | | |
| ▲ | wtetzner 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wouldn't a C in Harvard mean "average for a Harvard student"? | |
| ▲ | paulorlando 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A bit of context on that grading question here. It was interesting to me that grading has gone through a couple waves of inflation over the decades: https://unintendedconsequenc.es/what-i-talk-about-when-i-tal... | |
| ▲ | anonym29 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've interviewed Harvard CS grads for SWE roles at big tech who couldn't write a working program for fizzbuzz, for defanging an IP address, or for reversing words in a sentence, in a language of their choice, with leetcode's provided instructions, in half an hour, with unlimited attempts, gentle coaching from me, and the ability to use the internet to search for anything that isn't a direct solution (e.g. syntax). Yes, more than one. Either the bar for getting into Harvard cannot possibly be as high as it's made out to be, someone's figured out how to completely defeat degree-validation service providers, or Harvard is happy to churn out a nonzero number of students wholly unprepared for meeting extremely basic expectations for the prototypical job of their chosen degree. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you don’t cram for leetcode, you won’t pass a leetcode interview. It takes some kids a few interviews to figure that out, even they are from elite school like MIT. You were just their learning experience. | | |
| ▲ | anonymars an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I get the impression you latched on to the word leetcode and took away something very different FizzBuzz, reversing a sentence -- this is programming your way out of a wet paper bag, not elite and esoteric skills that need advanced study and cramming | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Similar concept. You have them do some task like fizzbuzz to see if they can program stuff on the fly that they would never need to do in real life. You practice that since school doesn't prepare you for that unless you do ACM programming contests or something. The interview demands this to see if the candidate is capable of cramming for the interview, which correlates with the effort, ability they could put into the job, not with what the skills they actually apply on the job, which are hard to measure in a one hour interview slot anyways. |
| |
| ▲ | anonym29 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you can't solve FizzBuzz in half an hour with a language of your choice while being able to look up syntax, your problem isn't that you failed to cram for leetcode, it's that you don't know how to write code. There's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to write code, but you probably shouldn't be applying for software engineering roles where the main responsibility of the job is ultimately to write working code. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Just to be clear I have no problem passing these interviews, I just spent a few weeks cramming leetcode and got a job at Google. Leetcode wasn’t the main reason I was hired, but it was a filter that I had to get through (I’ve never been given fizzbuzz before, but I assume that is just because it’s no longer in style and hasn’t been for more than a decade). You just don’t throw yourself into on the fly coding, you practice them because your competition has and you will look bad if you don’t. Let’s not pretend that any of us are ready to do alien dictionary at the spur of a moment, or thats a useful skill for our role. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jswelker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The only entity that has ever cared about my college GPA has been other colleges when I signed up for grad school. And even in that case it is just a "stat check" in gamer parlance. 3.0 or greater, yes. Lower, no. That kind of thing. Zero employers have ever asked to see my college GPA after graduating almost 17 years ago. | |
| ▲ | hc12345 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As prices for college go up, the student is more of a customer than anything, and therefore the pressure to raise grades goes up. Who is going to go to a college where people tend to need an extra year to graduate, when each year is 60k? Or one where only the top 5% of a class gets a top grade? You are already seeing grade inflation in the UK too: Go look at the percentage of first class degrees over time. The only place where a modern US university can be used as a filter is in their own admissions, where they can still be pretty stringent. Harvard could fill their class 6 times with people that are basically indistinguishable from their freshman class, so just getting into the right university already shows that you must have had some skill and maturity by the time you were a junior in high school. This is also why hiring juniors is so difficult nowadays for software: Having successfully finished a CS degree at most universities says nothing about your ability to write any code at all, or analyze any complex situation. And with the advent of leetcode training, it's not as if you can now tell who happens to be good because they remember their algorithms and data structure classes really well. You have no idea of how good the new grad is going to be when they show to the interview, and even those that pass might not be all that great in practice, as they might just have spent 3 months memorizing interview questions like an automaton. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes but it is not standardized at all. Every college has its own way of doing things. Even every degree or school within a university can be different in how they handle grades. Some places put every student on a curve, so that a particular distribution of grades is always enforced. Some places operate on more of a pass/fail basis - often this is done for the first couple years to avoid measuring students when they’re adjusting to a new lifestyle (meaning partying a lot). Some places tend to give out easy grades. So you cannot compare students across different degrees and colleges. | |
| ▲ | veqq 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All serious applicants have the maximum grade, in the US system. | | |
| ▲ | pastel8739 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think this is strictly true, but I do think it’s true that college GPA is not a differentiating factor. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mNovak an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think most people (namely high school seniors) go to college for neither. They go because that was the expectation, and was assumed to be at least approximately productive path. While arguably that's indirectly 'for the piece of paper', I'd argue the pleasant experience is a factor too, even if not quoted as such. i.e. if it was a purely rational, economic choice (my interpretation of going to college just for the degree) we'd see higher enrollment in high-ROI majors. |
|
| ▲ | Nevermark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which strongly suggests that one reason 4-year degrees have lost value, is the piece of paper has lost value. Because of (most?) people only getting a degree for the paper. Two improvements then: Degrees that earn the reputation of not being given for anything less than excellence in studies. Where the earned reputation is used both to discourage the non-serious, and enhance the value of the degree. And of course, bring down the costs. Create a high octane alumni network to match. Foster an opinionated high work ethic, college-as-daycare / party-scene repellent culture. Anything and everything rethought from scratch. For instance, why are degrees based on years? Why so standardized when neither students or jobs are? Why not a skill chart that can be custom traversed per student - with students expected to move on whenever they choose to, or have a good opportunity. A high percentage of students leaving for good jobs after just one year would be a win. For just one slice of education, to start. As with anything complex, start with something small and focused. Like a low population cutting edge practice/research AI school. Start from scratch with the thing that is new, challenging and in high demand. Then expand into other fast changing, high demand areas. Keep figuring out better ways, keep taking on more, keep reducing costs, as long as all three of those efforts tradeoffs are compatible. |
|
| ▲ | Aeolun 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You can provide the piece of paper at a fraction of the cost too. Nearly all of Europe does, I believe. |
| |
| ▲ | crossbody 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did Europe find a cheat code that gets free $$$ for education? Nothing is free - once you graduate you are hit with 50% tax that gets back all you "free" tuition costs many, many times over. Not saying education should not be subsidized via taxes (I think it's good overall), but it's not free at all - the price is just hidden and spread out over many years (similar to student loans but less visible). | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Europe has a much lower expenditure per student compared to the US. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-crazy-amount-america-spends... | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It does. In large part due to Baumol's cost disease - higher overall incomes in productive sector like tech drive up costs for sector with low productivity growth - so professors and admin staff in US make 2x salaries compared to Europe (cost of living adjusted). Also, have you seen EU student amenities and dorm sizes? | | |
| ▲ | piperswe 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it necessary for there to be student amenities paid for by the school? Why should tuition pay for a bunch of ancillary nice-to-haves instead of, ya know, the education? | |
| ▲ | mbesto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm trying to follow you. I don't get how Baumol's has a higher degree of effectiveness in the US than it does in the EU? Are you saying there are more tech companies and therefore tech roles in the US than EU and thus those drive up non-tech wages even though they aren't as productive? | | | |
| ▲ | btilly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When you break down how budgets have changed, the two biggest drivers of tuition increases are the growth of administration, and fancy amenities like sports facilities. The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has not been increasing. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has been steadily going down; those people have been complaining about this for decades. | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Ok, the prior link was comparing it to EU though, so perhaps costs for professors there went down even more, as professors make less there compared to US |
|
| |
| ▲ | yardie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | EU universities, the amenities are quite meager, as they should be. But for dorms it’s usually single occupancy. Unlike the US where you’re expect to have roommates. |
|
| |
| ▲ | anonymouskimmer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From what I understand European education and degree programs are typically much more structured and narrow, and thus finish a lot faster. A student who finishes K-Ph.D. in the US will have a lot more breadth of exposure than such a student in most of Europe, if I recall what I read on the topic a while ago correctly. | |
| ▲ | ahartmetz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Was it much more subsidized in the US when it was much cheaper, though? | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd reword the question: "was college paid for via higher income taxes for graduates (and others) or via a more direct approach of student loan taking?". I believe the latter but I don't see the fundamental difference. It's the same student loan but hidden from sight, as it's packaged as higher tax % | | |
| ▲ | xethos 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > don't see the fundamental difference You're kidding. The former means all higher net worth individuals to take on both the cost (via taxes) and the benefit (a well-trained workforce for businesses, well-paid, highly taxed contributors for the state, an educated populace of voters, graduates with stable work and in-demand skills). The latter is another example of America's "Everyone for themselves" theme, with students bearing the entire cost of their education, while the graduate, public, state, and businesses reap the benefit. If the benefits are spread so widely, why shouldn't the cost be? | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages? My point is that it doesn't matter in principle if one takes a loan and pays it down over time vs. one is taxed at much higher % and that tax "pays down" a phantom student loan of "free" education. It does introduce a risk and hence the incentive for loan takers to choose their degree wisely though. Which should lead to better allocation of labor but at a cost of some personal risk. | | |
| ▲ | xethos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually included the graduate as a beneficiary ("a well-paid, highly taxed contributor" or "the graduate" in the counter), but more importantly: The entirety of society benefits from a well-educated populace. That's one reason even those without children pay for public education. Following that, if everyone benefits, why is the graduate taking on all the risk (via a non-dischargeable student loan) instead of spreading the risk across the entirety of society? | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, I overlooked that. I think that's fair that risk should be more spread. Comes at a cost of people choosing degrees more frivolously though and wasting their time and everyone's money | | |
| ▲ | xethos an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'd like to push back on "useless" degrees here, as well. The idea that degrees that leave graduates struggling to pay their bills (especially with student loans factored in) are worse than degrees that maximize income is bad for society. Not every job that is good for society pays well - if they did, educators would be better paid, and many executives would not be compensated as well as they are. Some degrees are less in-demand (at time of graduation) economically, but a well-educated populace that can apply critical thinking and remember lessons from history, can be its own reward. Notably, pushing for a population completely lacking these skills is an excellent way to topple a democracy over time. | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The pay is determined by supply and demand, apparently there is a relatively large supply of educators (many just enjoy it despite low pay) relative to the demand. I see your point on broader benefits, however, those are largely speculative while a shortage of e.g. doctors has very direct and concrete costs to the society. On prior point regarding spreading risks - would you say government should bail out failed entrepreneurs? Because that is very similar in principle (taking risk, benefit for society) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eli_gottlieb 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages? Nobody said the student achieves no benefit. We keep saying that the student does not capture all the benefit of their own education in higher wages, but bears the entire cost. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's what taxes are for. Subsidizing public good. Affordable access to good education is a good outcome from the heavy taxation I pay. | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | For sure. The main benefit is that it allows smart, hardworking but poor students to get a degree and utilize their brainpower productively for the benefit of all. That's great. Just don't say it's "free" - those who get the education pay back all they got via taxes (which in it's end effect are like paying down a student loan). | | |
| ▲ | venturecruelty 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just going to point out that this is semantic hair-splitting that usually comes from opponents of governments providing for the social welfare. Not saying you're doing that, but it's a thing that happens. And nobody thinks free education doesn't cost anything, just like people don't think the military doesn't cost anything. Somehow, though, there is endless trillions for "defense", and a little moth flies out of the wallet when it's for something that doesn't involve drones. | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Absolutely. I never would say it is "free". But in many ways it is a matter of what one values. I had opportunities to move to the US and likely make 2x-3x what I make here and pay less taxes. I chose moving to Europe instead. It is the sort of society I prefer to live in. | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Free at point of consumption. Anybody with half a brain understands that’s what’s meant when somebody says “free” education or “free” healthcare. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You can provide the piece of paper at a fraction of the cost This isn’t socially useful. | | |
| ▲ | venturecruelty 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And what we're doing now is? Telling 17-year-olds to take on six figures of debt and then replacing them with ChatGPT while making it impossible to discharge their debt? |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That doesn't have prestige value. Prestige comes from scarcity and the ability to exclude the lower caste. If people want to play those exclusivity games that's up to them. What's wrong is asking the taxpayer to fund it under the false mask that the entire product is education. | | |
| ▲ | creato 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The scarcity in Europe (at least the two countries I'm familiar with) comes from a standardized test. If you don't do well on the test, you don't go to college. | | |
| ▲ | MengerSponge 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | America used to do that, but Jewish students started taking (and doing well on) the test, and later Black and Asian students had the audacity to be brilliant too. This led to America's "holistic" college admissions process. For what it's worth, the USA isn't unique in adapting admissions to reject an unwanted minority. The most interesting mechanism has to be Moscow State University's Jewish Problems: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556 |
| |
| ▲ | thatcat 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most prestigous colleges are profitable and don't need the funding or the tuition |
|
|