Over a decade ago, my orientation at UChicago included the traditional "Aims of Education" address. They packed the whole first-year class into the chapel to explain, at length, that this education will not be "useful."

You're not supposed to make more money, or be happier, or really become anything other than a better version of yourself.

I wonder if they still do this.

▲

curiousllama 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Expanding this thought...

UChicago should be pretty uniquely positioned to address the problem of AI writ large. They already require a full year of each philosophy, literature, and history (all through primary sources). This "Core" should already be fairly AI-proof, given they are primarily small-group, discussion-driven courses; oral exams, in-class essays, or even graded discussions should be straightforward adaptations.

And yet, the university shifted towards professionalism before AI ("training a mind for the workforce" rather than "the good life").

Already, this transition did what the author observes AI is doing. I would hardly believe someone who cheats through an econ/stats major is less educated - if only through osmosis - than someone who honestly completes Business Economics.

And so I wonder - if the damage of AI is primarily instrumental to the broader trend of hyper-professionalism, what damage has it actually done?

If we automate away the signal to companies "yes, I can do stats for you," does that free students to focus more on the _less_ professional aspects of education?

Sure, it undercuts credentialism, making the "piece of paper" near worthless - but if our aim of education is just to "be better," should that not give us hope?

▲

jimbokun 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If the signal to corporations disappears the wage premium to a college education disappears and the students disappear along with the tuition paying the professors’ salaries.

▲

curiousllama 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe? Elite colleges have been around a lot longer than the professional credentialism of the last 20 years, no?

	▲	jimbokun 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point was still the credentials. Otherwise what signal does “prominent family and graduated from Harvard” have over just “prominent family”?

▲

jimbokun 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely some better versions of yourself would make more money or be happier?

	▲	curiousllama 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe - to your point, if we think of happiness as like “living one’s own purpose fully”, then yes, it does very directly. But I was referring to happiness more generally as enjoyment, joy, satisfaction - that type of thing. And in that case - there are plenty of ways being better = less happy. Eg if I were to sacrifice myself to save my family, then that’s the best version of me, but I’d be pretty dang unhappy about it.