The average college student today(hilariusbookbinder.substack.com)
hilariusbookbinder.substack.com
The average college student today
https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/the-average-college-student-today
1,032 コメント
As a student currently, I'll also throw in this perspective. The colleges themselves make it feel transactional and not about learning even if I'm interested in doing so.
For example, I'm taking a physics course right now (electricity and magnetism). The concepts are difficult for me and I was hoping that the homework would help. So, I go to do the homework, but the homework is online. With the online homework I get five chances to get the problem correct, but there is zero partial credit, zero feedback, and every time I get the answer wrong, it negatively impacts my grade.
I have no chance to make mistakes and learn. At least with homework that was handed out back in the day, there was at least the possibility of partial credit being handed out. So my options are going to office hours (which I try to do), go to tutoring hours (which conflicts with my job's work schedule), or go to ChatGPT and/or Chegg.
Additionally, since students have been cheating, I think it gives professors a skewed perspective on how much time is actually needed to get work done, so the deadlines get moved up. This means I get even more pressure put on me when I'm just trying to learn and be a good student.
For example, I'm taking a physics course right now (electricity and magnetism). The concepts are difficult for me and I was hoping that the homework would help. So, I go to do the homework, but the homework is online. With the online homework I get five chances to get the problem correct, but there is zero partial credit, zero feedback, and every time I get the answer wrong, it negatively impacts my grade.
I have no chance to make mistakes and learn. At least with homework that was handed out back in the day, there was at least the possibility of partial credit being handed out. So my options are going to office hours (which I try to do), go to tutoring hours (which conflicts with my job's work schedule), or go to ChatGPT and/or Chegg.
Additionally, since students have been cheating, I think it gives professors a skewed perspective on how much time is actually needed to get work done, so the deadlines get moved up. This means I get even more pressure put on me when I'm just trying to learn and be a good student.
In the 90s we had the "Plato" system for chemistry. It was a question/answer terminal in the library. Our Chemistry TA advised us to use it to study for exams as it had a lot of sample questions. It was really good because if you got it wrong, it actually gave you a detailed explanation of how to solve it. It was so helpful to have that. When I used the system, I made a bunch of mistakes but ended up learning from them, and it really helped for the exams.
1990, "PLATO reached it's maximum enrollment, with 4,029 course seats and approximately 30 courses and other applications." Plato was decommissioned in 1994.
https://www.umass.edu/it/it-timeline
Honestly as an engineer some of schooling was learning enough just to get by. We always envied the non-engineers who had more freedom to choose classes they were fascinated by.
For me the Masters Degree gives a better chance to dive deep into a single topic.
1990, "PLATO reached it's maximum enrollment, with 4,029 course seats and approximately 30 courses and other applications." Plato was decommissioned in 1994.
https://www.umass.edu/it/it-timeline
Honestly as an engineer some of schooling was learning enough just to get by. We always envied the non-engineers who had more freedom to choose classes they were fascinated by.
For me the Masters Degree gives a better chance to dive deep into a single topic.
What I find extremely sad in the whole academic business, is that all the work that is put in creating those tools, curriculum, classes materials etc are just wasted.
Systems are decomissioned, professors refuse to share their materials or to even update it when receiving students feedback or when there are new disoveries in the field. And copyright holders are threatening to bite when learning material is put online...
If you want to experience it again, they re-released the final version awhile back; they've got emulators for both the mainframe and terminals.
https://codex.retro1.org/plato:operation.r1:installing
https://codex.retro1.org/plato:operation.r1:installing
I recently read The Friendly Orange Glow and found it inspirational.
Is the entire PLATO system, including courseware, available? That would be tremendous.
[Edit: it looks like there is a lot of stuff there, so ... maybe??!]
Of course I also want to play Moria[1], etc. ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moria_(1975_video_game)
IIRC some of the PLATO courseware was ported to the TI 99/4A as well.
Is the entire PLATO system, including courseware, available? That would be tremendous.
[Edit: it looks like there is a lot of stuff there, so ... maybe??!]
Of course I also want to play Moria[1], etc. ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moria_(1975_video_game)
IIRC some of the PLATO courseware was ported to the TI 99/4A as well.
> We always envied the non-engineers who had more freedom to choose classes they were fascinated by.
Personally, I kind of pitied the non-STEM students.
My own problem was there were not enough slots in the schedule for all the classes I wanted to take. I figured the university knew what it was doing with the required classes, and they were right.
Personally, I kind of pitied the non-STEM students.
My own problem was there were not enough slots in the schedule for all the classes I wanted to take. I figured the university knew what it was doing with the required classes, and they were right.
> Personally, I kind of pitied the non-STEM students.
The only time I've had this opinion is when I was younger and conceited, holding onto an attitude that they're all wasting their money, probably fueled by envy.
Although there are moments—largely driven by other aspects of bureaucracy—where I wish I'd completed my bachelors, I'm quite happy in retrospect that I instead chose a bunch of random off-topic interesting humanities courses and non-cs-stem stuff, some of which I failed for inane reasons. Aside from a few moments in data structures and algorithms, I barely remember anything from the CS courses, they were unbelievably dull and poorly structured. In one case I believe I got nearly 100% on all the homework but failed both exams because I just kind of zoned out and wasn't driven to write java by hand for 2+ hours, which generally shocked the profs because I was typically the most engaged, personable, and probably older than everyone else by like 4 years.
The only time I've had this opinion is when I was younger and conceited, holding onto an attitude that they're all wasting their money, probably fueled by envy.
Although there are moments—largely driven by other aspects of bureaucracy—where I wish I'd completed my bachelors, I'm quite happy in retrospect that I instead chose a bunch of random off-topic interesting humanities courses and non-cs-stem stuff, some of which I failed for inane reasons. Aside from a few moments in data structures and algorithms, I barely remember anything from the CS courses, they were unbelievably dull and poorly structured. In one case I believe I got nearly 100% on all the homework but failed both exams because I just kind of zoned out and wasn't driven to write java by hand for 2+ hours, which generally shocked the profs because I was typically the most engaged, personable, and probably older than everyone else by like 4 years.
>> Personally, I kind of pitied the non-STEM students.
Well, as a STEM university graduate myself I admit being guilty of this thought and I think it's just something "hard science" thinks of "humanities" in general. Mostly due to mercantilism, most non-STEM studies have very poor job perspectives.
But ... it all comes down to numbers. The elephant in the room is that THERE ARE TOO MANY COLLEGE SEATS FOR STUDENTS. This has multiple causes but it's a societal problem and a pretty dire one.
Take one of the universities in my city: https://www.ubbcluj.ro . In 1989 (at the fall of the communist regime in Romania) it had 5,619 students. Overall, in all specialties and all years, took 4 years in general to graduate.
Today just at the admission exam were accepted 16,800 new students. Taking all years that makes about 55,000 students. 50 fucking thousand! That's 10 times the level during commies.
And that's the problem. A lot of people who have no business being in the academic environment are now funneled through it. Reason is first, because "The West" had every man, women and their dog get a college degree so we had to play catch up. Problem, as the article states, they are getting that degree on paper only, de jure, not de facto.
But the even deeper problem is the dissolution of white collar jobs. That happened both in the West and the East. Agriculture used to employ 90, 50, 30% of the population, now there's 2 to 5% working there. Industry used to employ 90, 50, 30% of the population, now there's 5 to 10% working there. And the rest? God have mercy! We're all in "services". We're fucking servicing the shit of each other.
So in order to avoid fixing the hard problem (what the fuck to do with people who don't have the skill and intellect to do academic stuff but are good enough for plowing in agriculture or operating a CNC machine), the powers be have opened the gates of colleges. Get a college degree, that will compensate for the lack of activities to do with it!
I could write more.
Bottom line, what you expecting from peasants going to college? You can take the peasant out of the village but you can't take the village out of the peasant, they say.
Well, as a STEM university graduate myself I admit being guilty of this thought and I think it's just something "hard science" thinks of "humanities" in general. Mostly due to mercantilism, most non-STEM studies have very poor job perspectives.
But ... it all comes down to numbers. The elephant in the room is that THERE ARE TOO MANY COLLEGE SEATS FOR STUDENTS. This has multiple causes but it's a societal problem and a pretty dire one.
Take one of the universities in my city: https://www.ubbcluj.ro . In 1989 (at the fall of the communist regime in Romania) it had 5,619 students. Overall, in all specialties and all years, took 4 years in general to graduate.
Today just at the admission exam were accepted 16,800 new students. Taking all years that makes about 55,000 students. 50 fucking thousand! That's 10 times the level during commies.
And that's the problem. A lot of people who have no business being in the academic environment are now funneled through it. Reason is first, because "The West" had every man, women and their dog get a college degree so we had to play catch up. Problem, as the article states, they are getting that degree on paper only, de jure, not de facto.
But the even deeper problem is the dissolution of white collar jobs. That happened both in the West and the East. Agriculture used to employ 90, 50, 30% of the population, now there's 2 to 5% working there. Industry used to employ 90, 50, 30% of the population, now there's 5 to 10% working there. And the rest? God have mercy! We're all in "services". We're fucking servicing the shit of each other.
So in order to avoid fixing the hard problem (what the fuck to do with people who don't have the skill and intellect to do academic stuff but are good enough for plowing in agriculture or operating a CNC machine), the powers be have opened the gates of colleges. Get a college degree, that will compensate for the lack of activities to do with it!
I could write more.
Bottom line, what you expecting from peasants going to college? You can take the peasant out of the village but you can't take the village out of the peasant, they say.
> Well, as a STEM university graduate myself I admit being guilty of this thought and I think it's just something "hard science" thinks of "humanities" in general. Mostly due to mercantilism, most non-STEM studies have very poor job perspectives.
What does mercantilism have to do with that? The problem with the job perspectives of students of many non-STEM subject is rather that it is often not easy to find economic applications of the knowledge that is taught in the humanities courses (which is made even more complicated by the often "left", "woke" bias that many humanities faculties have).
What does mercantilism have to do with that? The problem with the job perspectives of students of many non-STEM subject is rather that it is often not easy to find economic applications of the knowledge that is taught in the humanities courses (which is made even more complicated by the often "left", "woke" bias that many humanities faculties have).
So it's a natural progression. From agriculture (primary) to industrial (secondary) to services (tertiary). The AI revolution means services go the same way as industrial. Everybody goes to the 4th level.
<Narrator Voice>: There is no fourth level.
Nobody could envision the next level while being busy in the current one.
The fourth level would be the capitalist class (I.E everyone becomes an entrepreneur/businessman), but we didn't really figure out a reliable way to convert the upper-middle to upper. Funnily enough, the problem isn't lending, money was pretty cheap for the last decade or so, and even China had that whole microloan thing happening, but that not enough of the upper-middle were capable of executing correctly.
Imo, we should go back to education and take a more serious look about the social utility of what we are teaching, not on an individual but a systemic level and whether this really is the best way to allocate subjects. How much of this after all is about actual training or just social signalling?
Imo, we should go back to education and take a more serious look about the social utility of what we are teaching, not on an individual but a systemic level and whether this really is the best way to allocate subjects. How much of this after all is about actual training or just social signalling?
> Imo, we should go back to education
We tried that before the service revolution took off. That's exactly why we started pushing people into college, thinking that education could build entrepreneurship/businessmenship. We told the kids that if they become those entrepreneurs/businessmen they'd earn more money, live a better life, etc. in hopes to compel them in that direction.
But that's not what the people wanted.
We tried that before the service revolution took off. That's exactly why we started pushing people into college, thinking that education could build entrepreneurship/businessmenship. We told the kids that if they become those entrepreneurs/businessmen they'd earn more money, live a better life, etc. in hopes to compel them in that direction.
But that's not what the people wanted.
[deleted]
> everyone becomes an entrepreneur/businessman
...this has been "figured out" -- it's brutal, and it looks like the gig economy.
I don't even have to paraphrase this: "Drive with Uber - Be Your Own Boss"
...this has been "figured out" -- it's brutal, and it looks like the gig economy.
I don't even have to paraphrase this: "Drive with Uber - Be Your Own Boss"
At some point you’d think we’d learn that our economic system, and the way that we manage work, has stopped making the sense it made centuries ago when we developed it.
I personally also found taking upper division CS courses extremely time consuming. Like 80hrs/week outside of class by the end of semesters.
Was it this system? I used these terminals at U of Illinois in the late 80's, but I only remember using them to take my physics tests. I don't remember ever using them for studying or interactive learning.
https://grainger.illinois.edu/news/magazine/plato
https://grainger.illinois.edu/news/magazine/plato
They were more beige terminals. For us it was just reviewing material, tests were fill in the dot..(scantron)
I graduated (admittedly many-many years ago) from a good but not top-notch university. I remember a somehow similar situation: obviously learning was considered a good thing, but both the students and the professors realized that it's the diploma what brings most students there, not a pursuit of pure knowledge.
So I quickly realized that, unlike, say, elementary school, a university is not a push system, it's a pull system. If you want to learn, you need to make an effort and extract knowledge from this source. There's still plenty, but nobody is going to force-feed it to you. I read quite a lot beside the required books. I practiced quite a lot beside the lab practice (fortunately wielding a soldering iron or writing programs was a marketable skill; still is, but used to be, too). I asked my professors questions that were not entirely in the books; often that was during a few minutes after a lecture / classes / labs, so I got from them ideas and pointers to new directions to learn by myself.
Was it helpful in my career? Certainly yes, I started doing contract jobs three years before graduation, and then joined a bunch of interesting companies where that knowledge was somehow useful, mostly as a foundation of more specific skills.
I was certainly not alone; I knew (and often was friends with) a bunch of other students who craved knowledge and skills, and we helped each other shake these out of the university, past the transactional bounds. It wasn't all that hard, but it required a conscious effort.
Very certainly a large number of other students did more coasting than knowledge-mining. They got their diplomas, got some white-collar jobs that did not require such deep knowledge of engineering, I suppose, or started unrelated businesses.
So I quickly realized that, unlike, say, elementary school, a university is not a push system, it's a pull system. If you want to learn, you need to make an effort and extract knowledge from this source. There's still plenty, but nobody is going to force-feed it to you. I read quite a lot beside the required books. I practiced quite a lot beside the lab practice (fortunately wielding a soldering iron or writing programs was a marketable skill; still is, but used to be, too). I asked my professors questions that were not entirely in the books; often that was during a few minutes after a lecture / classes / labs, so I got from them ideas and pointers to new directions to learn by myself.
Was it helpful in my career? Certainly yes, I started doing contract jobs three years before graduation, and then joined a bunch of interesting companies where that knowledge was somehow useful, mostly as a foundation of more specific skills.
I was certainly not alone; I knew (and often was friends with) a bunch of other students who craved knowledge and skills, and we helped each other shake these out of the university, past the transactional bounds. It wasn't all that hard, but it required a conscious effort.
Very certainly a large number of other students did more coasting than knowledge-mining. They got their diplomas, got some white-collar jobs that did not require such deep knowledge of engineering, I suppose, or started unrelated businesses.
> If you want to learn, you need to make an effort and extract knowledge from this source.
Oh I'm 100% aware of this, and actually think it's better than the push system that school prior to college follows. The issue is that the content is significantly worse now.
There ends up being a lot of guesswork today of finding resources that are good. I always have to question: "does this person actually know what they're talking about or am I wasting my time?" I'm sure you had to do this back in your day, but with the overwhelming amount of information available, it becomes difficult to parse.
I would kill for a class where the professor just said, "Everything you need is in that book." Now we get, "The book doesn't talk about this, but you should know..." It's infuriating.
Oh I'm 100% aware of this, and actually think it's better than the push system that school prior to college follows. The issue is that the content is significantly worse now.
There ends up being a lot of guesswork today of finding resources that are good. I always have to question: "does this person actually know what they're talking about or am I wasting my time?" I'm sure you had to do this back in your day, but with the overwhelming amount of information available, it becomes difficult to parse.
I would kill for a class where the professor just said, "Everything you need is in that book." Now we get, "The book doesn't talk about this, but you should know..." It's infuriating.
Yes, the first encounter with a professor not knowing well the thing he was teaching was a mild shock. But, thought I, that professor had been a student back in the day, he also knows how to quickly prepare to the basics, and then just wing it, hoping that nobody is going to dig deeper.
After that I just started believing books more than some professors, as long as the books cross-checked with one another.
Recently a friend of mine, herself a professor, watched how some other professor, invited to give a special lecture, was obviously out of their depth in certain questions that they should know like the back of their hand in order to give such lectures. She was pretty depressed by that, and especially by the fact that her students might be fed incomplete or even wrong information. So the problem is there, is known, and is not an illusion :(
While at it, no one book contains all that you should know about a subject, if you want to know it well. Not the Feynman Lectures. Not Code Complete. Not even the Mahabharata. You always get to read more. (I'm not talking about the formal exam questions here, of course.)
After that I just started believing books more than some professors, as long as the books cross-checked with one another.
Recently a friend of mine, herself a professor, watched how some other professor, invited to give a special lecture, was obviously out of their depth in certain questions that they should know like the back of their hand in order to give such lectures. She was pretty depressed by that, and especially by the fact that her students might be fed incomplete or even wrong information. So the problem is there, is known, and is not an illusion :(
While at it, no one book contains all that you should know about a subject, if you want to know it well. Not the Feynman Lectures. Not Code Complete. Not even the Mahabharata. You always get to read more. (I'm not talking about the formal exam questions here, of course.)
> While at it, no one book contains all that you should know about a subject, if you want to know it well. Not the Feynman Lectures. Not Code Complete. Not even the Mahabharata. You always get to read more. (I'm not talking about the formal exam questions here, of course.)
Absolutely, and I'd like to clarify, I'm not expecting a single physics book to cover all there is to know about electricity and magnetism. I just mean for a particular course (where the purpose of the course is to expose me to the topic) to be centered around a book properly, in which new topics that aren't in the book aren't introduced (within reason of course)
Absolutely, and I'd like to clarify, I'm not expecting a single physics book to cover all there is to know about electricity and magnetism. I just mean for a particular course (where the purpose of the course is to expose me to the topic) to be centered around a book properly, in which new topics that aren't in the book aren't introduced (within reason of course)
It depends on the subject, of course. By the time someone has written a book on "programming language du jour" (say, Rust right now), and gotten it published and printed, it will be 1-2 years out of date. And students will complain that "all the information is online for free". Except, it's really hard to point at a specific website that is not in your (the professor's) control to say "everything you need is in here" when it could be taken offline tomorrow. Or reorganized and re-written in such a way that content is added or removed.
The course I think I did the best in teaching was to say "here is the textbook" (on databases) and then when a specific solution / technique came up, to point out that "this is how mysql does it", or "this one is used by postgres", etc.
The course I think I did the best in teaching was to say "here is the textbook" (on databases) and then when a specific solution / technique came up, to point out that "this is how mysql does it", or "this one is used by postgres", etc.
I started college at the CC level (having no HS diploma) to get into a State school. And from a series of poor choices and ignorance on my part needed to take a several years gap before returning to finish up.
I don't think in my experience students have changed all that much.
CC students have always felt more motivated in my opinion. But good Lord the quality of the education at the State level is abysmal. I am not saying there aren't quality professors and classes. There are.
There is however an alarming high number of poorly designed classes, nearly broken technology, poorly edited and badly written assignments, and questionable instruction.
I have to compare the quality and price with what I experienced in CC and it just makes me sad and depressed.
I don't think in my experience students have changed all that much.
CC students have always felt more motivated in my opinion. But good Lord the quality of the education at the State level is abysmal. I am not saying there aren't quality professors and classes. There are.
There is however an alarming high number of poorly designed classes, nearly broken technology, poorly edited and badly written assignments, and questionable instruction.
I have to compare the quality and price with what I experienced in CC and it just makes me sad and depressed.
The higher the level of education, the less attention paid to pedagogy. I had better teachers in high school than in college.
This was my general experience as well. The very best quality education I ever received was in my 7th grade math class, followed closely by my 7th grade English class.
I did have some very excellent university classes (including ones that were so good that I audited them without receiving credit), but I also had a lot that were positively abysmal, taught by professors who were experiencing severe mental health issues (one who'd had a stroke and could no longer comprehend the material, another who was going through a mental break and stopped teaching us altogether, etc.) or extremely stressed grad students who were not fluent in English and spent class time trying to catch up with their PhD workload.
My best university-level education actually came after I graduated and got a job working in a lab at my university. During that time, I worked closely with the professor and grad students, and it was such an amazing learning opportunity that I will never forget for the rest of my life — sadly cut short by the 2008 financial crisis.
I did have some very excellent university classes (including ones that were so good that I audited them without receiving credit), but I also had a lot that were positively abysmal, taught by professors who were experiencing severe mental health issues (one who'd had a stroke and could no longer comprehend the material, another who was going through a mental break and stopped teaching us altogether, etc.) or extremely stressed grad students who were not fluent in English and spent class time trying to catch up with their PhD workload.
My best university-level education actually came after I graduated and got a job working in a lab at my university. During that time, I worked closely with the professor and grad students, and it was such an amazing learning opportunity that I will never forget for the rest of my life — sadly cut short by the 2008 financial crisis.
If you look at how most professors and adjuncts are rewarded and paid, it makes sense. You can't get quality instruction from a adjunct who is only a half-step away from sleeping in their car, especially when they know they might be gone mid-semester due to a budget cut. Even the full professors are trying to bring in enough grants, oversee enough RAs and TAs to do the work for the grants, get some of their own research done, and barely have time to teach. Teachers in high school have a high teaching load relative to colleges and universities, but they are doing a job and generally are paid at least middle class wages.
I had a math prof who didn't speak English.
Didn't matter, one of the best courses I ever took. He made the math look beautiful on the old fashion chalk board. Absolutely wonderful and enlightening equations.
Didn't matter, one of the best courses I ever took. He made the math look beautiful on the old fashion chalk board. Absolutely wonderful and enlightening equations.
Better than the one who didn't speak much english and complained how chinese is so much easier because you don't have to learn a new word for beef, you just combine the symbols for "cow" and "meat", and still didn't know the material well.
> I don't think in my experience students have changed all that much.
I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree with this. I also started at a community college first, so I got to see a lot of adults trying to do career switches into tech.
Many of them were frankly the same if not worse than many of the young students you see in college today. One could definitely attribute some of that to the fact that they have more responsibilities to handle impacting them, but even just overall demeanor was noticeably worse. I frequently had adults 15-20 years older than me throwing their hands up and asking me to just give them the answers to what were ultimately very simple programming problems.
It was great for me because I took it as an opportunity to reinforce the material we were learning, but I knew I was doing them a disservice, so at some point I would stop enabling the poor behavior.
Honestly, to me the biggest thing impacting everyone is the inundation of information from technology today. I know it sounds cliche, but it's making academics a billion times harder than it needs to be. It's also making it less enjoyable and satisfying, thus people take the shortcut to get the grade they're looking for.
I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree with this. I also started at a community college first, so I got to see a lot of adults trying to do career switches into tech.
Many of them were frankly the same if not worse than many of the young students you see in college today. One could definitely attribute some of that to the fact that they have more responsibilities to handle impacting them, but even just overall demeanor was noticeably worse. I frequently had adults 15-20 years older than me throwing their hands up and asking me to just give them the answers to what were ultimately very simple programming problems.
It was great for me because I took it as an opportunity to reinforce the material we were learning, but I knew I was doing them a disservice, so at some point I would stop enabling the poor behavior.
Honestly, to me the biggest thing impacting everyone is the inundation of information from technology today. I know it sounds cliche, but it's making academics a billion times harder than it needs to be. It's also making it less enjoyable and satisfying, thus people take the shortcut to get the grade they're looking for.
What the college tuition debate overlooks is that for costs to go down, so does the quality of the experience. this means college is more barebones and less handholding, like in Europe.
Maybe for the costs to go down, the administrative fat could be trimmed instead.
Especially when you consider that it's gotten to the point where at many schools with the worst and most extreme administrative bloat, there is one non-teaching, bureaucratic administrator for every student.
In the absence of UBI can you blame them? Not everybody can, or wants to, be productive.
Why should those who don't want to be productive be supported by those who do?
Taxpayers end up with bill either way, I think, either directly through UBI and welfare or indirectly through losses due to crime, policing costs.
Europe has a good approach by using subsidies as a more palatable UBI initiative to keep their startups afloat.
Europe has a good approach by using subsidies as a more palatable UBI initiative to keep their startups afloat.
I'm saying the opposite has been my experience.
There's plenty of ways for Universities to lower costs without hurting quality.
There are plenty of open resources nowadays. Many of the paid online only textbooks with inconsistent tooling and accessibility for starters could be eliminated.
Expensive corporate software contracts is another. Access to MS office is nice in theory but in practice many students rely on Google instead AND there are open alternatives that don't have unreliable authentication problems.
There's plenty of ways for Universities to lower costs without hurting quality.
There are plenty of open resources nowadays. Many of the paid online only textbooks with inconsistent tooling and accessibility for starters could be eliminated.
Expensive corporate software contracts is another. Access to MS office is nice in theory but in practice many students rely on Google instead AND there are open alternatives that don't have unreliable authentication problems.
University tuition here is state sponsored, the difference is not that great (everything over 10k a year is a cashgrab anyway) You have the "institution rate" aka real cost + milk foreign students tax, and the European cost aka affordable. The university gets a yearly allowance per European student plus a lump sum on graduation (yes this brings graduation rates up and quality down).
The end result is that the average money received is about 60% (give or take 5-10 percent depending on left or right wing politics) of the institution rate so you now know the foreign "tax". If you are over 32 you should also pay the institution rate but it is almost fully tax deductible.
The end result is that the average money received is about 60% (give or take 5-10 percent depending on left or right wing politics) of the institution rate so you now know the foreign "tax". If you are over 32 you should also pay the institution rate but it is almost fully tax deductible.
Costs have been increasingly hard to justify given the wealth of information the internet provides, for some time now. Often, a sufficiently motivated person can piece together a lot of material themselves, given a general "structure" of topics/material.
Lots of textbooks floating around out there too.
LLMs add another layer to this. In many cases, the whole thing is looking a bit silly (at least at the state level)
Lots of textbooks floating around out there too.
LLMs add another layer to this. In many cases, the whole thing is looking a bit silly (at least at the state level)
This is really unfortunate, and I think your instructor should read it.
It sounds like your instructor has confused homework with quizzes, and the cheating issue demands some rethinking of the course pace and assessment system.
In physics and related fields, I have found fully worked problems to be very valuable. If your textbook includes some of these, I recommend reviewing them and working similar practice problems if possible. I wonder if things like supplementary texts, khan academy, or tutorials on youtube might help as well.
As you note, systems like ChatGPT could be helpful for explaining or working through problems, but obviously you won't learn anything if you rely on them for doing your own problem sets.
It sounds like your instructor has confused homework with quizzes, and the cheating issue demands some rethinking of the course pace and assessment system.
In physics and related fields, I have found fully worked problems to be very valuable. If your textbook includes some of these, I recommend reviewing them and working similar practice problems if possible. I wonder if things like supplementary texts, khan academy, or tutorials on youtube might help as well.
As you note, systems like ChatGPT could be helpful for explaining or working through problems, but obviously you won't learn anything if you rely on them for doing your own problem sets.
Typically these online homework systems are pushed by the department much to the chagrin of the professors, but the students are required to pay ~$100/ea for the privilege of doing automated homework, and the department gets some nice kickbacks.
Student abuse. Bundling textbooks with single-use codes for these systems is also malicious.
Interesting. When I was an undegraduate we had textbooks which were at least 25% problems and solutions, allowing for near endless self practice.
I am currently holding my copy of "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths in my hands; somehow it is rarely more than a metre from where I work!
Are such textbooks still popular and used (i.e. mandatory to purchase) in courses like this?
I am currently holding my copy of "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths in my hands; somehow it is rarely more than a metre from where I work!
Are such textbooks still popular and used (i.e. mandatory to purchase) in courses like this?
I've noticed specifically with undergraduate physics courses that the textbook will usually get bundled with the online homework service that the school is using, and that part you're required to purchase if you want to do your homework.
Nowadays though, if a professor states that a textbook is required and there's no online service involved, 80% of the time the professor is exaggerating and probably hasn't even read the book themselves. The other 20% of the time, students will generally just find the pdf for free online somewhere (As a CS student, I tend to find my books on GitHub).
I know I'm digressing from what you asked a bit here, but I just really need to take a moment to highlight that the textbooks that are "required" today are not nearly as good as the textbooks you likely went to school with (I'm making a bit of an assumption about the era of your schooling here, so correct me if you only just recently graduated). There are way to many instances of some no-name authors getting the shot at publishing with O'Reilly or Pearson. The content will be mostly correct, but they're never truly illuminating.
Nowadays though, if a professor states that a textbook is required and there's no online service involved, 80% of the time the professor is exaggerating and probably hasn't even read the book themselves. The other 20% of the time, students will generally just find the pdf for free online somewhere (As a CS student, I tend to find my books on GitHub).
I know I'm digressing from what you asked a bit here, but I just really need to take a moment to highlight that the textbooks that are "required" today are not nearly as good as the textbooks you likely went to school with (I'm making a bit of an assumption about the era of your schooling here, so correct me if you only just recently graduated). There are way to many instances of some no-name authors getting the shot at publishing with O'Reilly or Pearson. The content will be mostly correct, but they're never truly illuminating.
On that note, the only textbook I still have is a 1980s Physics 100 book, and I still pull it out occasionally for reference.
The best homework system i ever experienced was high school calculus.
4 points per assignment. Pass the assignment to a peer for grading. If they wrote down the problem and attempted it: 3 points. One more point if the logic and steps were followable, even if wrong.
The answers were in the back of the book. The homework grade should reflect attempts and practice, not mastery as that is what exams are for.
4 points per assignment. Pass the assignment to a peer for grading. If they wrote down the problem and attempted it: 3 points. One more point if the logic and steps were followable, even if wrong.
The answers were in the back of the book. The homework grade should reflect attempts and practice, not mastery as that is what exams are for.
My high school calculus teacher would assign homework every day, anywhere from a couple problems, to a dozen or more, depending on the work. 5 points for the homework, no matter how many problems. One point off for each problem missed. Sometimes broken down by steps if it was very-few problems (but still with way more opportunities to lose points, than there were points)
Assigned every. Fucking. Night.
You could spend two hours on it, get a majority of the problems right and get extremely close on the rest but make some identical mistake on each of them at the end, and still get not just an F, but a zero. It could be an insanely large assignment, and also you have other classes and other things happening in life, so you only get half of it done because these were not small assignments, but at least get all the ones you did right. Zero points, because you missed 5 or more.
To say it was demoralizing would be an understatement.
Assigned every. Fucking. Night.
You could spend two hours on it, get a majority of the problems right and get extremely close on the rest but make some identical mistake on each of them at the end, and still get not just an F, but a zero. It could be an insanely large assignment, and also you have other classes and other things happening in life, so you only get half of it done because these were not small assignments, but at least get all the ones you did right. Zero points, because you missed 5 or more.
To say it was demoralizing would be an understatement.
You are right, what degraded is not simply the students attention and motivation, it is the whole institution. They keep pushing ineffective approaches all over. You are right to blame LMSes, they are absolute disasters, poorly designed and ineffective at anything except save time for professors (and let's be real here, they also do social media and unrelated to their work activities so they are trading their teaching opportunities for leisure). Those LMSes are probably as detrimental as PowerPoint has been for communicating to an audience.
It is as if everyone is trying to avoid doing what they are here to do. They replace thought, exchanges and discovery with miserable tools just so they can go waste their time on something else.
> my options are going to office hours (which I try to do), go to tutoring hours (which conflicts with my job's work schedule), or go to ChatGPT and/or Chegg.
Have you considered trying to do the problems yourself, away from the computer, then checking your work with ChatGPT or the like?
Have you considered trying to do the problems yourself, away from the computer, then checking your work with ChatGPT or the like?
I should probably do that more, however, one big issue is I can't always trust that I'm not being led astray with some of the posts on Chegg or the responses from ChatGPT and other AI model interfaces. I will frequently get responses from ChatGPT and/or Chegg that are just flat out wrong. So I could compare my answers against these services (which takes a long time), but I run the risk now of potentially learning the wrong approach when I go and find out that the walkthrough I was following was incorrect.
Which granted, that's just part of the work, but these weird hoops to jump through just shouldn't be there in the first place, and they used to not be there as well. So my gripe is why on Earth did we add them?
Which granted, that's just part of the work, but these weird hoops to jump through just shouldn't be there in the first place, and they used to not be there as well. So my gripe is why on Earth did we add them?
Yeah, the new interface sounds ridiculously bad. Sorry you have to go through that.
o1-pro is quite reliable for elementary problems, FWIW. I use it extensively for reading AI research papers.
o1-pro is quite reliable for elementary problems, FWIW. I use it extensively for reading AI research papers.
I'm lucky enough to teach in a school that has small classes; I get to be very accessible to the students. There is some auto-grading, but most homework I grade by hand and give partial credit.
But if my classes were 300 people, I couldn't do that.
I also have relaxed deadlines so students can take more time if they need it, and request it in advance.
The object is to learn stuff. That's where I'm aiming.
But if my classes were 300 people, I couldn't do that.
I also have relaxed deadlines so students can take more time if they need it, and request it in advance.
The object is to learn stuff. That's where I'm aiming.
Can I ask what school? I have kids that will be ready to start college in a few years and I’m always on the looking for places like what you’re describing
I can only vouch for my classes (which are CS undergrad). Other instructors have other policies, but most programs have small class sizes.
The campus is Oregon State University-Cascades in Bend. We're a new campus so we're looking for more students.
The campus is Oregon State University-Cascades in Bend. We're a new campus so we're looking for more students.
I remember this frustration clearly. It's valuable to be challenged and struggle and overcome, but the value of a perfect GPA is a lot more salient.
From your numerous comments on this topic, it seems that you are remarkably self-aware (for a college student) about your own learning process. That is kind of amazing. I hope you really know just how broken the system that you're describing is and that it is absolutely worth fighting to figure out how to really learn something hard.
Also know that there's a yin and yang here. You're in a broken system--but the system used to be broken in other ways. Your point about there being too many resources strikes me as fascinating and true--and yet we have efforts like Three Blue One Brown taking teaching to a whole new level. People who figure out how to learn are always in a golden age.
Also know that there's a yin and yang here. You're in a broken system--but the system used to be broken in other ways. Your point about there being too many resources strikes me as fascinating and true--and yet we have efforts like Three Blue One Brown taking teaching to a whole new level. People who figure out how to learn are always in a golden age.
First, I appreciate the kind words, they really do mean a lot.
I will say, part of the reason I'm likely more aware is because I am an older undergrad (currently 25), but additionally, I've seen all sides of the education system, so I've been exposed to quite a lot.
> People who figure out how to learn are always in a golden age.
100% agree on this. The ability to be able to pick anything up and just go with it opens life up to a wealth of opportunities.
I will say, part of the reason I'm likely more aware is because I am an older undergrad (currently 25), but additionally, I've seen all sides of the education system, so I've been exposed to quite a lot.
> People who figure out how to learn are always in a golden age.
100% agree on this. The ability to be able to pick anything up and just go with it opens life up to a wealth of opportunities.
i’m assuming this is a system that changes the numbers in the question each time? often there is a separate “practice” button where you can practice and (maybe) get feedback, figure out the process, and then do the questions?
even if not, try putting the textbook and the question into an AI (I use the paid version of gemini, the $20/ month is the best money you’ll ever spend at college), then as it to explain how to answer the question. Then ask it to generate a similar question, and then give you feedback to you as you try to answer it. Then try and answer it step by step, repeat as many times as you like until you understand and keep getting the right answer, then answer the actual homework question.Feel free to dm me if you want to discuss!
even if not, try putting the textbook and the question into an AI (I use the paid version of gemini, the $20/ month is the best money you’ll ever spend at college), then as it to explain how to answer the question. Then ask it to generate a similar question, and then give you feedback to you as you try to answer it. Then try and answer it step by step, repeat as many times as you like until you understand and keep getting the right answer, then answer the actual homework question.Feel free to dm me if you want to discuss!
Using AI is risky since it's trained on data from sites like Chegg, StudySmarter (now known as Vaia), Brainly, etc.
Since those are user submitted answers, they sometimes get them wrong and so the AI models just regurgitate the wrong answer, especially if it's for a problem that's infrequently assigned by professors.
Nevertheless, I still use the AI models to try and aid in solving these problems, there's just always this gut feeling that I'm being guided in the wrong direction, but since I'm not versed in the subject I'm learning, I can't identify the hallucinations or inaccuracies.
Since those are user submitted answers, they sometimes get them wrong and so the AI models just regurgitate the wrong answer, especially if it's for a problem that's infrequently assigned by professors.
Nevertheless, I still use the AI models to try and aid in solving these problems, there's just always this gut feeling that I'm being guided in the wrong direction, but since I'm not versed in the subject I'm learning, I can't identify the hallucinations or inaccuracies.
I agree to some extent. A wild one to me is how schools will limit the number of classes you can take and/or pressure you to graduate on time even if it means choosing a major before you're really ready. That seems like a surefire way to kill any interest in exploring knowledge and replace it with a focus on mechanical box-checking.
They have to make room for incoming freshmen.
That homework setup sounds awful. I wonder how much it was shaped by educators, and how much by techbros.
Unfortunately, the setup I'm talking about is the norm these days. It's the MyLab and Mastering software offered by Pearson.
It doesn't just stop at physics. I've seen it used in math courses and economics courses as well.
Sometimes professors will setup the system so that you can redo the problem with different numerical inputs for the variables, and that approach is fine to me as it lets me learn through trial and error without negatively impacting my grade.
It doesn't just stop at physics. I've seen it used in math courses and economics courses as well.
Sometimes professors will setup the system so that you can redo the problem with different numerical inputs for the variables, and that approach is fine to me as it lets me learn through trial and error without negatively impacting my grade.
Yeah the outsourcing of homework and grading to publishers is a sorry state of affairs.
It's on educators. It started well before tech.
They want kids to do homework, so they give a few free marks for doing it. Kids cheat and ignore anything not marked because that's how people respond to incentives. Then the lecturers wonder why no-one is doing stuff that isn't marked, and try to fill in the gaps by marking more things until they run out of capacity to police it all.
There are upsides to continuous assessment, but it's effectively micromanagement and has all the predictable downsides. "I applied hard incentives to make people give me X and Y, so why don't they they game the system, and why don't they also do Z, shocked picachu face."
They want kids to do homework, so they give a few free marks for doing it. Kids cheat and ignore anything not marked because that's how people respond to incentives. Then the lecturers wonder why no-one is doing stuff that isn't marked, and try to fill in the gaps by marking more things until they run out of capacity to police it all.
There are upsides to continuous assessment, but it's effectively micromanagement and has all the predictable downsides. "I applied hard incentives to make people give me X and Y, so why don't they they game the system, and why don't they also do Z, shocked picachu face."
I agree. I took linear algebra through an online course. I can't imagine a worse way to learn the topic. I happily cheated on tests to pass the class.
Mind you, I already apply linear algebra daily—I simply refuse to waste my time computing basic operations on matrices by hand when that's why we have computers and partial credit isn't available.
Mind you, I already apply linear algebra daily—I simply refuse to waste my time computing basic operations on matrices by hand when that's why we have computers and partial credit isn't available.
We don't really have to look for an explanation. The author says it, pure and clear.
"It’s the phones, stupid"
That's it. Every other variable, including the transactional nature of acquiring a middle class job, has stayed the same. People are just getting dumber [1], and the phones are causing this drop.
I am as tech forward as the next person. I think AI deserves the time to figure out what it is. But the phones have basically shown us where all their negatives and positives are. Time to regulate, get the phones out of the schools. If you're in one of these states [2] get behind the active legislation, if not, start it!
[1]: https://theweek.com/science/have-we-reached-peak-cognition
[2]: https://apnews.com/article/school-cell-phone-bans-states-e6d...
"It’s the phones, stupid"
That's it. Every other variable, including the transactional nature of acquiring a middle class job, has stayed the same. People are just getting dumber [1], and the phones are causing this drop.
I am as tech forward as the next person. I think AI deserves the time to figure out what it is. But the phones have basically shown us where all their negatives and positives are. Time to regulate, get the phones out of the schools. If you're in one of these states [2] get behind the active legislation, if not, start it!
[1]: https://theweek.com/science/have-we-reached-peak-cognition
[2]: https://apnews.com/article/school-cell-phone-bans-states-e6d...
Nah. Humanities professors keep claiming it's phones because that's visible to them when they lecture but read what they're saying carefully and the actual cause is obvious: students don't take it seriously because the professors don't.
The whole way through this sorry excuse for an essay I was thinking, "so your fail rate is way up, right? Right??" Insert padmé meme here. Then at the end he asks what he's supposed to do... maintain standards by failing the students? Heaven forbid! The University might make less money! I'm not kidding, the author actually said this. Well, apparently reading all those novels about the philosophy of the Underground Man didn't help because that's the only explanation needed; phones are entirely superfluous. If a degree is a transaction and you keep lowering the price, of course people will pay that lower price.
It's also silly to claim there's an issue with phones specifically, given the author says he can't stop people using laptops in class because the administration is easily manipulated through claims of disability. One student spent the whole time gambling on a laptop and the professor didn't even notice. Banning phones won't help, phones are just a surface level symptom of the fact that humanities courses at minimum have become completely fake and professors don't care enough to stop it.
The whole way through this sorry excuse for an essay I was thinking, "so your fail rate is way up, right? Right??" Insert padmé meme here. Then at the end he asks what he's supposed to do... maintain standards by failing the students? Heaven forbid! The University might make less money! I'm not kidding, the author actually said this. Well, apparently reading all those novels about the philosophy of the Underground Man didn't help because that's the only explanation needed; phones are entirely superfluous. If a degree is a transaction and you keep lowering the price, of course people will pay that lower price.
It's also silly to claim there's an issue with phones specifically, given the author says he can't stop people using laptops in class because the administration is easily manipulated through claims of disability. One student spent the whole time gambling on a laptop and the professor didn't even notice. Banning phones won't help, phones are just a surface level symptom of the fact that humanities courses at minimum have become completely fake and professors don't care enough to stop it.
It's easy to get caught up in negative judgments about another generation [1] and it can be hard to put one group's vices in context when they seem different from your own.
That said, I know for myself that my attention span has gotten shorter. I used to read more. Now I listen to audiobooks. When reading text, even engaging fiction can be a struggle. I read one or two pages and feel the urge to check something else or look at something else or get up and do something. I know this wasn't the case in middle school or high school (late 2000s).
I think it's because of first podcasts and then watching / listening to too thousands of YouTube videos at 2x speed. I've become much more "efficient" at consuming entertainment content - so "efficient" that I can get bored listening to someone telling an interesting story at 1x speed.
The only advantage I have is that I can tell that this has happened and I can work against it by forcing myself to read more. But if things were always like that, how would I know? When you're sleep deprived every day for years, you don't notice how much it is affecting you. It's the same with a short attention span.
[1]: Aside: the omnipresent talk about generations these days is maybe not the best thing to begin with.
That said, I know for myself that my attention span has gotten shorter. I used to read more. Now I listen to audiobooks. When reading text, even engaging fiction can be a struggle. I read one or two pages and feel the urge to check something else or look at something else or get up and do something. I know this wasn't the case in middle school or high school (late 2000s).
I think it's because of first podcasts and then watching / listening to too thousands of YouTube videos at 2x speed. I've become much more "efficient" at consuming entertainment content - so "efficient" that I can get bored listening to someone telling an interesting story at 1x speed.
The only advantage I have is that I can tell that this has happened and I can work against it by forcing myself to read more. But if things were always like that, how would I know? When you're sleep deprived every day for years, you don't notice how much it is affecting you. It's the same with a short attention span.
[1]: Aside: the omnipresent talk about generations these days is maybe not the best thing to begin with.
Maybe it'd help to have a new perspective on it? I think you're completely right that you're just a much more efficient consumer now than you once were. But what's wrong with that?
I'm in the same boat as you, except that I don't feel I have attention span problems. If what I'm reading is a bad use of time, I switch to something else. If it's not, I have no trouble reading a long article or paper. I frequently read a blog post and discover half an hour later that I just read what would be 30-40 pages if printed out. It doesn't feel like a lot of reading because there's no physical page turning, but it is.
If you can consume an interesting story at 2x speed, there's no moral or personal wrong in wanting to consume it at 2x speed. Just do it! Books are mere technology: they can and should be replaced with something better if it comes along.
I'm in the same boat as you, except that I don't feel I have attention span problems. If what I'm reading is a bad use of time, I switch to something else. If it's not, I have no trouble reading a long article or paper. I frequently read a blog post and discover half an hour later that I just read what would be 30-40 pages if printed out. It doesn't feel like a lot of reading because there's no physical page turning, but it is.
If you can consume an interesting story at 2x speed, there's no moral or personal wrong in wanting to consume it at 2x speed. Just do it! Books are mere technology: they can and should be replaced with something better if it comes along.
The key word here (and this is something I fight personally) is consuming. You don’t learn anything by consuming it; you only learn by doing it. So being able to watch the lecture at 2X is only helping if it makes more time to do the exercises.
But doing the exercises is hard (much like physical exercise, that pain is in fact the signal that you’re making progress). And the more time we spend just consuming, the less natural it feels to work.
It’s so easy to blast through a lecture or speed read a text and feel like you accomplished “learning”. That illusion is destroyed as soon as you have to actually do something (in school, that’s usually write an essay or pass a test).
In other words, the bottleneck has never been how fast you can consume the text. It’s how fast you can do the work to internalize the knowledge.
But doing the exercises is hard (much like physical exercise, that pain is in fact the signal that you’re making progress). And the more time we spend just consuming, the less natural it feels to work.
It’s so easy to blast through a lecture or speed read a text and feel like you accomplished “learning”. That illusion is destroyed as soon as you have to actually do something (in school, that’s usually write an essay or pass a test).
In other words, the bottleneck has never been how fast you can consume the text. It’s how fast you can do the work to internalize the knowledge.
I'm 34. In highschool I read long, difficult literary fiction for fun. Now I can just about manage good genre fiction (think something like Iain Bank's Culture series) if I put my mind to it and take breaks to look at my phone.
I wonder if I'll ever be able to fix my attention span.
I wonder if I'll ever be able to fix my attention span.
It’s a practice thing. Start leaving your phone at home for short trips and get used to being a little bored again. I promise you if there’s an emergency, there are 500 cell phones within a hundred yards.
That's pretty spot on with my experience as well, though I'm a decade older.
> Banning phones won't help, phones are just a surface level symptom of the fact that humanities courses at minimum have become completely fake and professors don't care enough to stop it.
It's not just humanities courses and it also affects "elite" universities.
For the graduate NLP course my advisor taught at UMass Amherst, despite allowing ChatGPT for a take home test (this was a couple years ago), 60% of the students broke into two separate collusion rings (one Chinese group and another South Asian) and copied off of each other. They got caught when the answers were wrong, but in a different way than ChatGPT. Despite the seriousness of the rampant cheating, students were not failed out of the course, mainly because it reflects badly on the University if they fail. My advisor had to go through a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy in the process.
Jump forward to Cornell University where I'm currently a postdoc and grade inflation is real. They had to get rid of reporting course-wide median grade beside a student's grade on their transcript [1] to help combat it.
That hasn't prevented the pressure to pass students with high marks despite abysmal performance. I supervised an undergrad's research one semester as an independent study course. That student did very little work and despite multiple promptings over several weeks, would fail to provide their code for me to help debug and provide code review. I ended up giving them a B+, which is somehow considered "failing". The student even reached out after grades were assigned to beg me to reconsider. None of the students I've worked with so far have had the skills I'm pretty sure I mastered by that time (this includes work with undergrads, master's students, and PhD students). I'm continually shocked by the caliber of students here compared to what I assumed before joining.
I trust professors who've been teaching for decades when they say something has qualitatively changed.
[1]: https://registrar.cornell.edu/grades-transcripts/median-grad...
It's not just humanities courses and it also affects "elite" universities.
For the graduate NLP course my advisor taught at UMass Amherst, despite allowing ChatGPT for a take home test (this was a couple years ago), 60% of the students broke into two separate collusion rings (one Chinese group and another South Asian) and copied off of each other. They got caught when the answers were wrong, but in a different way than ChatGPT. Despite the seriousness of the rampant cheating, students were not failed out of the course, mainly because it reflects badly on the University if they fail. My advisor had to go through a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy in the process.
Jump forward to Cornell University where I'm currently a postdoc and grade inflation is real. They had to get rid of reporting course-wide median grade beside a student's grade on their transcript [1] to help combat it.
That hasn't prevented the pressure to pass students with high marks despite abysmal performance. I supervised an undergrad's research one semester as an independent study course. That student did very little work and despite multiple promptings over several weeks, would fail to provide their code for me to help debug and provide code review. I ended up giving them a B+, which is somehow considered "failing". The student even reached out after grades were assigned to beg me to reconsider. None of the students I've worked with so far have had the skills I'm pretty sure I mastered by that time (this includes work with undergrads, master's students, and PhD students). I'm continually shocked by the caliber of students here compared to what I assumed before joining.
I trust professors who've been teaching for decades when they say something has qualitatively changed.
[1]: https://registrar.cornell.edu/grades-transcripts/median-grad...
> Then at the end he asks what he's supposed to do... maintain standards by failing the students? Heaven forbid! The University might make less money!
He did say it, but you have to keep reading after that. Fail too many students and you will get called in by the dean for a "discussion" where they basically tell you to stop doing that. For the non-tenured faculty this is not something they can reasonably fight. Maybe tenured faculty could, and they might not get outright fired, but their teaching load could be reduced or students will simply not sign up for their classes once they have a reputation for being a hardass.
Aside from that, nearly every student manages to have some "disability" that requires an accommodation. I had one professor friend tell me a student required an accommodation that they not receive any negative feedback. They literally weren't allowed to tell the student when they were wrong.
He did say it, but you have to keep reading after that. Fail too many students and you will get called in by the dean for a "discussion" where they basically tell you to stop doing that. For the non-tenured faculty this is not something they can reasonably fight. Maybe tenured faculty could, and they might not get outright fired, but their teaching load could be reduced or students will simply not sign up for their classes once they have a reputation for being a hardass.
Aside from that, nearly every student manages to have some "disability" that requires an accommodation. I had one professor friend tell me a student required an accommodation that they not receive any negative feedback. They literally weren't allowed to tell the student when they were wrong.
"this is not something they can reasonably fight"
They don't seem afraid of activism if it's protesting the current bad thing.
They don't seem afraid of activism if it's protesting the current bad thing.
The university administration doesn’t discourage that. In some cases they encourage it.
They won’t get denied tenure for protesting the current thing. It’s more likely they could get denied tenure for not loudly protesting the current thing.
They won’t get denied tenure for protesting the current thing. It’s more likely they could get denied tenure for not loudly protesting the current thing.
I did keep reading after that, but it didn't change anything.
As the sibling notes, academics have no problem suddenly finding their voice when they discover a colleague who's secretly harboring mildly right wing views. The open letters, protests, outrage and demands for resignations flow like water until the administration folds, usually about 0.25 seconds later.
The author describes a problem created by the policies of the university leadership, but refuses to lay the blame at their feet. Instead he/she says things like "This is not an educational system problem, this is a societal problem" and "It’s the phones, stupid." after describing a problem that is 100% caused by the faculty themselves. Because where do the deans come from? Why would they have leverage to dismiss a professor who upheld standards? They came from the faculty, and they have leverage because the faculty created this problem and are willing to propagate it.
As the sibling notes, academics have no problem suddenly finding their voice when they discover a colleague who's secretly harboring mildly right wing views. The open letters, protests, outrage and demands for resignations flow like water until the administration folds, usually about 0.25 seconds later.
The author describes a problem created by the policies of the university leadership, but refuses to lay the blame at their feet. Instead he/she says things like "This is not an educational system problem, this is a societal problem" and "It’s the phones, stupid." after describing a problem that is 100% caused by the faculty themselves. Because where do the deans come from? Why would they have leverage to dismiss a professor who upheld standards? They came from the faculty, and they have leverage because the faculty created this problem and are willing to propagate it.
The dean is like a middle manager. They are not the university leadership. The actual leadership is the president and board of trustees and the legions of administrators who create and enforce policies. They are not faculty or if they once were like the president and some other upper level positions, they left that path a long time ago.
They care about things like the US News and World Report rankings, and if students are failing classes and it starts hurting their graduation rate and hurting their ranking, they put a stop to it.
They care about things like the US News and World Report rankings, and if students are failing classes and it starts hurting their graduation rate and hurting their ranking, they put a stop to it.
I wonder if anyone has considered creating a ranking system based on some other, hidden metric/algorithm so it’s not useless and easily gamed.
Did you understand what was being said.
You are not engaging with the central issue- the education pipeline is depositing students with a far lower attention span and capability than ever before, in college classes, for all subjects, including Math.
You are banging on humanities as it is a ritualistic target. Math and science teachers, including comp sci teachers are pointing this out.
The trend exists.
You are not engaging with the central issue- the education pipeline is depositing students with a far lower attention span and capability than ever before, in college classes, for all subjects, including Math.
You are banging on humanities as it is a ritualistic target. Math and science teachers, including comp sci teachers are pointing this out.
The trend exists.
I disagree that's the central issue, that's why I didn't engage with it.
The belief that students are somehow now mentally broken in a way unique and never-before-seen is an enormous claim. These articles never manage to support this claim. Instead they just assert it as if it's so obvious it doesn't require any actual work to show.
Where you see some problem that starts pre-university, what I see is students acting rationally given the system they find themselves in. My own university experience was decades ago but no different except for the absence of smartphones and laptops in the lecture theatres. Bad lecturers, bad material, rampant cheating and fake marking schemes in which there was no connection between work and final grades: all the problems have been there for a very long time. Phones didn't create this problem, educators did. It's just easier for faculty to play pretend when students appear to be staring at the front of the auditorium because they have nothing else to stare at.
The belief that students are somehow now mentally broken in a way unique and never-before-seen is an enormous claim. These articles never manage to support this claim. Instead they just assert it as if it's so obvious it doesn't require any actual work to show.
Where you see some problem that starts pre-university, what I see is students acting rationally given the system they find themselves in. My own university experience was decades ago but no different except for the absence of smartphones and laptops in the lecture theatres. Bad lecturers, bad material, rampant cheating and fake marking schemes in which there was no connection between work and final grades: all the problems have been there for a very long time. Phones didn't create this problem, educators did. It's just easier for faculty to play pretend when students appear to be staring at the front of the auditorium because they have nothing else to stare at.
> the education pipeline is depositing students with a far lower attention span and capability than ever before, in college classes, for all subjects, including Math.
Unsurprisingly. In the past:
1. Those with lower attention spans generally didn't try to go to college in the first place. They often didn't even graduate from high school[1].
2. If they did try, colleges rejected their application long before they ever arrived on campus. Now colleges seek to accommodate them.
College used to be just for elites. At some point we decided it should be for everyone. When you try to shove more and more people into college, you're going to find out that most people don't have what it takes. It is like us deciding everyone should get to play in the NFL and then wonder why the talent is so poor...
We can't have it both ways.
[1] When I was in high school the graduation rate was only around 60%. Nowadays it is around 90%. That is a substantial shift in relatively few years. Did the students suddenly become better students out of the blue? Of course not.
Unsurprisingly. In the past:
1. Those with lower attention spans generally didn't try to go to college in the first place. They often didn't even graduate from high school[1].
2. If they did try, colleges rejected their application long before they ever arrived on campus. Now colleges seek to accommodate them.
College used to be just for elites. At some point we decided it should be for everyone. When you try to shove more and more people into college, you're going to find out that most people don't have what it takes. It is like us deciding everyone should get to play in the NFL and then wonder why the talent is so poor...
We can't have it both ways.
[1] When I was in high school the graduation rate was only around 60%. Nowadays it is around 90%. That is a substantial shift in relatively few years. Did the students suddenly become better students out of the blue? Of course not.
As I recall, the author of the article looks at this at over a long enough time horizon to call out the difference.
I rechecked the article, and they’ve been teaching for 30 years. I went through the links (1) (2) and it looks like this has been accelerating since 2010, with one comment saying they noticed it starting in 2006.
1) https://www.honest-broker.com/p/whats-happening-to-students
2) https://www.ft.com/content/a8016c64-63b7-458b-a371-e0e1c54a1...
This is from the article.
I rechecked the article, and they’ve been teaching for 30 years. I went through the links (1) (2) and it looks like this has been accelerating since 2010, with one comment saying they noticed it starting in 2006.
1) https://www.honest-broker.com/p/whats-happening-to-students
2) https://www.ft.com/content/a8016c64-63b7-458b-a371-e0e1c54a1...
This is from the article.
> with one comment saying they noticed it starting in 2006.
Yup. This is exactly when high school graduation rates started to skyrocket – my cohort being from a few years earlier – and with virtually everyone (save those who are completely disabled) graduating by the time we were into the 2010s. That was a significant shift in the landscape, and it happened quickly to boot.
Shove a greater number of people with less ability into education and you are going to notice.
Yup. This is exactly when high school graduation rates started to skyrocket – my cohort being from a few years earlier – and with virtually everyone (save those who are completely disabled) graduating by the time we were into the 2010s. That was a significant shift in the landscape, and it happened quickly to boot.
Shove a greater number of people with less ability into education and you are going to notice.
Nah, University is too late to fix this. But clearly kids aren’t fully “passing” their high school and probably middle school skills.
Mass failings while satisfying has an air of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”. As a parent I can see the mass pull towards phones, practically impossible to disentangle save for simple surgical regulation.
No one should be allowed to have phones in class. That’s it.
Mass failings while satisfying has an air of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”. As a parent I can see the mass pull towards phones, practically impossible to disentangle save for simple surgical regulation.
No one should be allowed to have phones in class. That’s it.
My vibe is that phones have this bimodal effect on cognition, which further confuses the debate.
The smart kids use them as tools to complement and accelerate their learning but everyone else mostly just gets dumber from the infinite Oww my Balls adjacent content they're addicted to.
At this professor's Average U, everyone is mostly in the worse camp.
The smart kids use them as tools to complement and accelerate their learning but everyone else mostly just gets dumber from the infinite Oww my Balls adjacent content they're addicted to.
At this professor's Average U, everyone is mostly in the worse camp.
The transactional nature hasn’t always been the same, though. It hasn’t always been that way, or at least the nature of the transaction has changed. Decades ago, surveys showed the predominant reason people went to college was “to develop a philosophy for life”. Now the main reason is “to get a good job.”
It's because academia has, from antiquity to just vaguely recently, been a playground for the children of the rich to either pursue erudite passions or just to schmooze and make friends with other rich people's kids.
For normal people there wasn't a lot of point. Jobs didn't require these. My father, who just retired, had a high school education with no college, yet held what would nowadays require a bachelors in mechanical engineering, at a minimum. He himself considers himself quite lucky to have basically been the last person onto the no-degree train to the middle class.
I think to some degree this is a matter of capital formation not keeping pace with the general increase in education access for the rest of the workforce. We're educating people but our system struggles to produce companies that can gainfully employ them. And by "our system", I do think there's a nontrivial factor in bigcos conspiring to not ever run the labor market as hot as they did in the past decade. They'd rather grow slower than let employees have bargaining power.
For normal people there wasn't a lot of point. Jobs didn't require these. My father, who just retired, had a high school education with no college, yet held what would nowadays require a bachelors in mechanical engineering, at a minimum. He himself considers himself quite lucky to have basically been the last person onto the no-degree train to the middle class.
I think to some degree this is a matter of capital formation not keeping pace with the general increase in education access for the rest of the workforce. We're educating people but our system struggles to produce companies that can gainfully employ them. And by "our system", I do think there's a nontrivial factor in bigcos conspiring to not ever run the labor market as hot as they did in the past decade. They'd rather grow slower than let employees have bargaining power.
I don't know why americans have this strange idea, but the first university in italy was created to learn law, which lead to a very well remunerated job.
So it's in no way a new thing.
So it's in no way a new thing.
It’s not entirely new (especially for the professional class like lawyers), but as the poster indicated, it’s relatively new for the middle class
>vaguely recently
I’d argue it’s not vague at all. In the US, I think it can be traced directly to the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, starting in 1862. I think that’s when college focus began to move from a liberal arts focus to a vocational focus.
I’d argue it’s not vague at all. In the US, I think it can be traced directly to the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, starting in 1862. I think that’s when college focus began to move from a liberal arts focus to a vocational focus.
Then those surveys were only of privileged students who had the connections and the family backing to not worry about thier livelihood.
I can guarantee you that my mom went to college so she could get a job (retired teacher). My dad went to school because it was free as a veteran. But he made more as a factory worker.
I don’t know a single person who went to college with me for any other reason than a career.
I also bet those surveys didn’t go to the now Historically Black Colleges and Universities - the only ones that my mom could go to.
I can guarantee you that my mom went to college so she could get a job (retired teacher). My dad went to school because it was free as a veteran. But he made more as a factory worker.
I don’t know a single person who went to college with me for any other reason than a career.
I also bet those surveys didn’t go to the now Historically Black Colleges and Universities - the only ones that my mom could go to.
I disagree. Because starting in the 1940s, there were large masses of less privileged people going to college on account of the GI Bill. They still had different views about college than we see currently (anecdotes not withstanding).
Do you think people coming out of the military - many with no skills that they thought could help them get a job after they left - went to college to be better citizens of the world and not to get a job?
If you listen to military recruiters now, they emphasize the ability to be able to get a job after you leave through training.
Also the statistics show that lower income people statistically go into the military.
When you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I can guarantee you that most people’s first priority is to support their addictions to food and shelter and are most concerned with making money to do so. It’s only the privileged who have parents who can support them while they are getting launched who can afford to get degrees in areas like Ancient Chinese Art History or more realistically journalism and work for low pay in high cost of living areas.
If you listen to military recruiters now, they emphasize the ability to be able to get a job after you leave through training.
Also the statistics show that lower income people statistically go into the military.
When you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I can guarantee you that most people’s first priority is to support their addictions to food and shelter and are most concerned with making money to do so. It’s only the privileged who have parents who can support them while they are getting launched who can afford to get degrees in areas like Ancient Chinese Art History or more realistically journalism and work for low pay in high cost of living areas.
>went to college to be better citizens of the world and not to get a job?
It depends on the era. The data says they likely did decades ago, and less likely to share that same view now. Around the 1980s the proportions switched: prior, the majority of freshman had a goal of “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” compared to “being very well-off financially”. After the 1980s, that proportion inverted to the majority focused on material success.
Because the 1940s onward had a relatively high proportion of students from lower and middle class backgrounds, I don’t think the social class argument has as much explanatory power as you imply. In other words, the differences is that our cultural attitudes about college have likely changed due to other factors.
Edit: edited to soften tone and give more information. The data comes from UCLAs Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) surveys of incoming freshman. https://heri.ucla.edu/cirp-freshman-survey/
It depends on the era. The data says they likely did decades ago, and less likely to share that same view now. Around the 1980s the proportions switched: prior, the majority of freshman had a goal of “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” compared to “being very well-off financially”. After the 1980s, that proportion inverted to the majority focused on material success.
Because the 1940s onward had a relatively high proportion of students from lower and middle class backgrounds, I don’t think the social class argument has as much explanatory power as you imply. In other words, the differences is that our cultural attitudes about college have likely changed due to other factors.
Edit: edited to soften tone and give more information. The data comes from UCLAs Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) surveys of incoming freshman. https://heri.ucla.edu/cirp-freshman-survey/
After your link, it still doesn’t show supporting data
You can register to get it through the "Access Data" tab. If you don't want to do that Google "HERI freshman survey". If that's still too much work, click on "Images" to see slides people have put together to summarize the data. You can also search for "The American Freshman: 40 year trends" to get summary reports.
Instead of going through the scavenger hunt, quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
But just looking at one source it says no community colleges were represented and 60 private colleges and 12 public colleges were represented.
That automatically skews the results to more privileged people who can consider it an outlet to “be a better person in the world and mommy and daddy can support me while I get my unpaid internship in NYC and then become a journalist who can’t support myself” over the people who will eventually have to depend on themselves to exchange enough labor for money to support their need for food and shelter.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/HERI-TFS-Brief.pdf
Also notice that 80% went to college to get a job. Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
But just looking at one source it says no community colleges were represented and 60 private colleges and 12 public colleges were represented.
That automatically skews the results to more privileged people who can consider it an outlet to “be a better person in the world and mommy and daddy can support me while I get my unpaid internship in NYC and then become a journalist who can’t support myself” over the people who will eventually have to depend on themselves to exchange enough labor for money to support their need for food and shelter.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/HERI-TFS-Brief.pdf
Also notice that 80% went to college to get a job. Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
>quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms). I've already clearly described the trend and given you multiple avenues to look at the data, if you were curious enough to do so. If it's not apparent, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Figure 14 of the previously mentioned paper gives you the numbers:
-In 1966,about 85% said developing a philosophy of life is a priority, while about 42% said being very well off financially was a priority
-By 2006, nearly 75% said being very well off financially was a priority while developing a philosophy of life dipped below 50%
In other words, priorities inverted.
>That automatically skews the results to more privileged people
The authors took measures to control for "more privileged" students when comparing public/private data. From the paper:
"By disaggregating CIRP median household income by public and private institutions and comparing each set of reporting students, we are able to tease out the differences in parental income over time relative to each other and relative to the national median household income"
>Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
Note the paper also discusses how the relative wealth of parents of incoming freshman has increased. Implying poorer students were a larger share of the student body at the time when developing a philosophy of life was a more dominant priority.
You should read the report and look at the data. It's rare to find longitudinal data that spans so many decades.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms). I've already clearly described the trend and given you multiple avenues to look at the data, if you were curious enough to do so. If it's not apparent, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Figure 14 of the previously mentioned paper gives you the numbers:
-In 1966,about 85% said developing a philosophy of life is a priority, while about 42% said being very well off financially was a priority
-By 2006, nearly 75% said being very well off financially was a priority while developing a philosophy of life dipped below 50%
In other words, priorities inverted.
>That automatically skews the results to more privileged people
The authors took measures to control for "more privileged" students when comparing public/private data. From the paper:
"By disaggregating CIRP median household income by public and private institutions and comparing each set of reporting students, we are able to tease out the differences in parental income over time relative to each other and relative to the national median household income"
>Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
Note the paper also discusses how the relative wealth of parents of incoming freshman has increased. Implying poorer students were a larger share of the student body at the time when developing a philosophy of life was a more dominant priority.
You should read the report and look at the data. It's rare to find longitudinal data that spans so many decades.
I've already clearly described the trend and given you multiple avenues to look at the data
You have described the trend with no evidence that people have someone overcome their need for food and shelter with no concrete data and just to look it up.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms)
It’s also the norm to back up your assertions with citations and quotes.
And you are cherry picking something that doesn’t support your evidence of something obvious - most people need to work to eat. There is a difference between “building wealth” and not being homeless and hungry. Poor people without the support of mommy and daddy must focus on the very bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
You did say 40 years ago
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/beyond-the-countercultur...
Notice that before the 60s, neither the poor or especially minorities had access to the schools that were populated (and surveyed) by people who saw college as a way to obtain “self actualization”
Also notice it was in the 60s when schools became accessible to people who weren’t in a high income household and had to stay at home. These students were also more interested in getting better jobs
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286516315_The_Rise_...
And family background - ie people with money was the main determinant of people getting into college before the 1960s
https://lhendricks.org/Research/borrowing/paper.pdg
It has always been people who knew that they weren’t going to be homeless or hungry that could afford to think about higher levels of needs like “self actualization” could focus on that over “I need to get a degree to make sure I’m not homeless, hungry and naked”
You think people are going to get in tens of thousands of debt, without the support of affluent parents as a back stop aren’t mostly concerned about getting a job to pay off said debt?
Those opportunities simply weren’t available to poor people before the 60s. I bet you a paycheck they never surveyed HBCUs in the 60s in the south where attendance was by people trying to deal with and escape the limitations of the Jim Crow south.
And the entire purpose of the GI bill was retraining so that ex military could get a job.
And even then the survey was skewed because an entire class of people who would have gone to college to get a job were excluded
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/18/1129735948/black-vets-were-ex...
Of course if you exclude people who need college to get a job from going to college in the first place and then there is a big influx of people going to college to open of doors, you’re going to get more people saying they see college as a way to have a better life.
They aren’t going to get a Journalism degree and then do unpaid internships to “pursue their passions”
You have described the trend with no evidence that people have someone overcome their need for food and shelter with no concrete data and just to look it up.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms)
It’s also the norm to back up your assertions with citations and quotes.
And you are cherry picking something that doesn’t support your evidence of something obvious - most people need to work to eat. There is a difference between “building wealth” and not being homeless and hungry. Poor people without the support of mommy and daddy must focus on the very bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
You did say 40 years ago
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/beyond-the-countercultur...
Notice that before the 60s, neither the poor or especially minorities had access to the schools that were populated (and surveyed) by people who saw college as a way to obtain “self actualization”
Also notice it was in the 60s when schools became accessible to people who weren’t in a high income household and had to stay at home. These students were also more interested in getting better jobs
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286516315_The_Rise_...
And family background - ie people with money was the main determinant of people getting into college before the 1960s
https://lhendricks.org/Research/borrowing/paper.pdg
It has always been people who knew that they weren’t going to be homeless or hungry that could afford to think about higher levels of needs like “self actualization” could focus on that over “I need to get a degree to make sure I’m not homeless, hungry and naked”
You think people are going to get in tens of thousands of debt, without the support of affluent parents as a back stop aren’t mostly concerned about getting a job to pay off said debt?
Those opportunities simply weren’t available to poor people before the 60s. I bet you a paycheck they never surveyed HBCUs in the 60s in the south where attendance was by people trying to deal with and escape the limitations of the Jim Crow south.
And the entire purpose of the GI bill was retraining so that ex military could get a job.
And even then the survey was skewed because an entire class of people who would have gone to college to get a job were excluded
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/18/1129735948/black-vets-were-ex...
Of course if you exclude people who need college to get a job from going to college in the first place and then there is a big influx of people going to college to open of doors, you’re going to get more people saying they see college as a way to have a better life.
They aren’t going to get a Journalism degree and then do unpaid internships to “pursue their passions”
Decades ago college was for the people who were financially secure and could choose a life of the mind. Now it's a prerequisite for almost any real job. Guess what, the programmers grinding Leetcode aren't doing it for the thrill of solving a puzzle either.
[deleted]
This was true pre-GI-Bill, maybe, which puts it way out at the edge of living memory. It took a while for it to become a requirement for such a large proportion of jobs, but that's when the shift got going, and in a hurry.
I wonder how many people here (outside of college) spend lots of times on their phones (or their other types of screens)
It's pretty clear outside of academia in restaurants, in lines waiting, in bed in the morning or evening... the phones (and screens) have won our attention.
Do people actually quit their addiction?
It's pretty clear outside of academia in restaurants, in lines waiting, in bed in the morning or evening... the phones (and screens) have won our attention.
Do people actually quit their addiction?
Yeah... There are exponentially more legacy applicants to colleges today than there were 30 years ago. By definition.
You could take every positive child development intervention known to man, and get what like, +5 IQ points?
But be related to a Senator, and you will be hundreds of times more likely to become a Senator (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/21/wh...) Show me how phone use delivers a +/-10,000% affect on outcomes the way nepotism does, and then I'll start listening to all this nonsense about variables and dumber students.
You could take every positive child development intervention known to man, and get what like, +5 IQ points?
But be related to a Senator, and you will be hundreds of times more likely to become a Senator (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/21/wh...) Show me how phone use delivers a +/-10,000% affect on outcomes the way nepotism does, and then I'll start listening to all this nonsense about variables and dumber students.
You're not wrong, many students approach college as a vocational training facility. I'd say they do want to learn, but the focus is on "learning to get a job".
If you're lucky (and I was) at some point you understand that it's not about the material, it's about the process.
Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
These skills, and the understanding of how to use them, are the real goal -the material is just there to keep your interest.
Yes, obviously, if you are going into chemistry then learn chemistry and so on. But round out your course with other things. Oceanography can give you insight to computer science, literature can promote better communication.
Alas a large number of folks will leave college and never grasp the real value of why they were there. That's OK. The world needs workers.
But if you are at college now, or perhaps going soon, try and see beyond the next assignment. Try and see the process which underlies it.
Most of all college is there to teach you to think. So stop doing for just a moment and start thinking.
Once you see behind the curtain you can't unsee it. And ironically even if I tell you it's there, I can't make you look. Experience doesn't work like that.
If you're lucky (and I was) at some point you understand that it's not about the material, it's about the process.
Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
These skills, and the understanding of how to use them, are the real goal -the material is just there to keep your interest.
Yes, obviously, if you are going into chemistry then learn chemistry and so on. But round out your course with other things. Oceanography can give you insight to computer science, literature can promote better communication.
Alas a large number of folks will leave college and never grasp the real value of why they were there. That's OK. The world needs workers.
But if you are at college now, or perhaps going soon, try and see beyond the next assignment. Try and see the process which underlies it.
Most of all college is there to teach you to think. So stop doing for just a moment and start thinking.
Once you see behind the curtain you can't unsee it. And ironically even if I tell you it's there, I can't make you look. Experience doesn't work like that.
Do you think this might be tied to a person’s financial situation?
Grow up with a safety net, you’ll enjoy the process.
Grow up poor and/or with people depending on you and you focus on the end state?
Grow up with a safety net, you’ll enjoy the process.
Grow up poor and/or with people depending on you and you focus on the end state?
I would argue the opposite.
Grow up with a safety net and you don't take it seriously.
Group poor and/or with people depending on you, you understand the task at hand.
I goofed off a lot in college until I was tired of partying and realized I was going nowhere; about end of Sophomore year. All the older folks who paid their own way sure took it seriously. For reference, I'm also GenX.
I'm sure motivations range from what I suggested to what you suggested.
Grow up with a safety net and you don't take it seriously.
Group poor and/or with people depending on you, you understand the task at hand.
I goofed off a lot in college until I was tired of partying and realized I was going nowhere; about end of Sophomore year. All the older folks who paid their own way sure took it seriously. For reference, I'm also GenX.
I'm sure motivations range from what I suggested to what you suggested.
Both viewpoints can be true at the same time.
I think it plays a part. Just like personality does. And the college itself does. And the professors you get, and so on.
But really the insight is internal. And it's just insight, it doesn't dictate your response.
In other words I'm not saying this insight suddenly means you change career path. Most of us will go out and get jobs in an office, most will progress on similar lines.
The difference is in how you approach things. For example; if you see programming as vocational training then the language they teach you matters. If they taught you Java then you apply for a job doing Java.
If you see it as I did, then you see programming, not language. Language is easy to learn, and I've done serious work in at least 4 in my career. My first job was in a language I'd never seen before. Today I spend a lot of time in one that wasn't even invented.
If I had to go out and find work tomorrow I'm confident I can handle whatever language they prefer. I don't say that with arrogance- it'll take effort - but rather I'm confident I know how to learn.
Thus I'm not scared of AI. It's a tool, and I'm happy to learn it and use it. It won't replace me because I don't "write code", I program (and I understand the difference. )
So ultimately I'm not sure that financial status or whatever make a big difference. Ultimately it comes down to the person.
But really the insight is internal. And it's just insight, it doesn't dictate your response.
In other words I'm not saying this insight suddenly means you change career path. Most of us will go out and get jobs in an office, most will progress on similar lines.
The difference is in how you approach things. For example; if you see programming as vocational training then the language they teach you matters. If they taught you Java then you apply for a job doing Java.
If you see it as I did, then you see programming, not language. Language is easy to learn, and I've done serious work in at least 4 in my career. My first job was in a language I'd never seen before. Today I spend a lot of time in one that wasn't even invented.
If I had to go out and find work tomorrow I'm confident I can handle whatever language they prefer. I don't say that with arrogance- it'll take effort - but rather I'm confident I know how to learn.
Thus I'm not scared of AI. It's a tool, and I'm happy to learn it and use it. It won't replace me because I don't "write code", I program (and I understand the difference. )
So ultimately I'm not sure that financial status or whatever make a big difference. Ultimately it comes down to the person.
> Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
I really love this. I'll try and bear this in mind over the next few years.
I'm a mature-aged student going for their second degree (CS the first time, science this time). I am loving the subject but it's hard at the beginning because the amount of new stuff I have to absorb is overwhelming. At the times when I have a bit of a breather -- either when I'm "getting it" or during mid-semester break -- I find the subject (biology) wonderful.
I really love this. I'll try and bear this in mind over the next few years.
I'm a mature-aged student going for their second degree (CS the first time, science this time). I am loving the subject but it's hard at the beginning because the amount of new stuff I have to absorb is overwhelming. At the times when I have a bit of a breather -- either when I'm "getting it" or during mid-semester break -- I find the subject (biology) wonderful.
Congratulations on going back. I've considered it from time to time, but honestly it just seems like too much work :)
And yes, especially the first couple years there's a lot of work. Especially if you "have a life" outside as well.
It helps that you enjoy it - indeed I suggest it's necessary to succeed. Well done.
And yes, especially the first couple years there's a lot of work. Especially if you "have a life" outside as well.
It helps that you enjoy it - indeed I suggest it's necessary to succeed. Well done.
Agreed. I always felt my computer engineering degree taught me how to approach a problem and logically solve it, weigh the pros and cons, etc. As well as introducing me to the hardware side of things - I already knew by high school that I could learn any programming language given enough time (already had Basic, C, SQL, a couple of DSLs and knew at least in part, 3 different human languages). I wanted to force myself to get a similar "baseline" for hardware.
Of course, it has impacted all parts of my life - I think differently than I did before studying engineering, and I sometimes try to apply this problem solving in non-technical parts of life with.. mixed results.
Of course, it has impacted all parts of my life - I think differently than I did before studying engineering, and I sometimes try to apply this problem solving in non-technical parts of life with.. mixed results.
I'm confused with your comment, because you start here:
> If you're lucky (and I was) at some point you understand that it's not about the material, it's about the process.
> Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
But then follow that with:
> Alas a large number of folks will leave college and never grasp the real value of why they were there. That's OK. The world needs workers.
Like... I guess it depends what precisely you mean by "workers" but in my mind at least, if we're thinking similarly, that would be white-collar office workers. And what you describe in the previous quoted section is, IMHO, a perfectly reasonable breakdown of what college is preparing them to do. But then the subsequent line feels like a criticism of the output of that.
> If you're lucky (and I was) at some point you understand that it's not about the material, it's about the process.
> Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
But then follow that with:
> Alas a large number of folks will leave college and never grasp the real value of why they were there. That's OK. The world needs workers.
Like... I guess it depends what precisely you mean by "workers" but in my mind at least, if we're thinking similarly, that would be white-collar office workers. And what you describe in the previous quoted section is, IMHO, a perfectly reasonable breakdown of what college is preparing them to do. But then the subsequent line feels like a criticism of the output of that.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. It's a legit question.
So, I think college can be different things to different people. Most will treat it as vocational training. And yes they'll end up being good office workers and we need those.
I refer to luck only because I perceive the other to be in the minority. Also because you can't make someone see it. Even if I tell you it's there (it's not a secret) doesn't mean you'll get it.
And again, my perception is that "getting it" leads to a better life. (For some definition of "better", usually not financial. )
Which doesn't make office workers bad. That's objectively a good life.
So, I think college can be different things to different people. Most will treat it as vocational training. And yes they'll end up being good office workers and we need those.
I refer to luck only because I perceive the other to be in the minority. Also because you can't make someone see it. Even if I tell you it's there (it's not a secret) doesn't mean you'll get it.
And again, my perception is that "getting it" leads to a better life. (For some definition of "better", usually not financial. )
Which doesn't make office workers bad. That's objectively a good life.
The process underneath is busy work to make some learning criteria milestone for accreditation
I agree that that is how many people see it. Possibly even your professors.
Fortunately I went to a place where the professors understood the real goals and made decisions as such.
For example (and this is my history, not advice) I took a couple electives for pure interest sake (I didn't need them to graduate. ) I went to all the lectures. I wrote all the exams and tests.
But I skipped all the prac work. I didn't do any of the weekly assignments. Nominally that meant I couldn't write the final exam. (They don't like people writing and failing, and prac work is correlated to that.)
But I went to see both professors. Both knew me (at least by sight, not name.) I explained why the prac work was not important to me (it covered the same process as I'd learned in other courses and the minutiae of the material was irrelevant to me.) My test scores showed I would pass. Both gave me an exemption snd let me write (and I passed.)
I don't recommend this. YMMV. But I hindsight I think maybe they understood I was there to learn process, not material. I was there to add to my big picture, not because I was going to be an oceanographer or astronomer.
I can't even say that I used anything from those courses in my career, although I did write a system for a marine company once, so maybe :)
Fortunately I went to a place where the professors understood the real goals and made decisions as such.
For example (and this is my history, not advice) I took a couple electives for pure interest sake (I didn't need them to graduate. ) I went to all the lectures. I wrote all the exams and tests.
But I skipped all the prac work. I didn't do any of the weekly assignments. Nominally that meant I couldn't write the final exam. (They don't like people writing and failing, and prac work is correlated to that.)
But I went to see both professors. Both knew me (at least by sight, not name.) I explained why the prac work was not important to me (it covered the same process as I'd learned in other courses and the minutiae of the material was irrelevant to me.) My test scores showed I would pass. Both gave me an exemption snd let me write (and I passed.)
I don't recommend this. YMMV. But I hindsight I think maybe they understood I was there to learn process, not material. I was there to add to my big picture, not because I was going to be an oceanographer or astronomer.
I can't even say that I used anything from those courses in my career, although I did write a system for a marine company once, so maybe :)
Yep. I gave a similar speech on the first day of every English 101 class I ever taught. (Though, damn, I wish I'd had as concise a formulation as your list of skills. Nicely done.) In my case I largely hoped to head off the resentment that STEM majors frequently expressed about how come they were required to take something so irrelevant to their eventual careers as writing. It sometimes worked.
I didn't get to take English at college, but I've spent a lot of my career writing and training. I've written a couple text books, and more documentation than I care to remember.
Writing well is definitely a skill worth learning. Communication is the single most important thing to career advancement.
Writing well is definitely a skill worth learning. Communication is the single most important thing to career advancement.
You and I both know that! Try explaining it to 18-year olds who hate writing° and think coding / maths / lab-work is all they'll ever need. It doesn't go well.
°The real problem was that they didn't read. Sadly, I could pretty much predict the grade-distribution on the first day of class with one question: "have you ever read anything for fun?"
The students who regularly read books and magazines (hell, even comic books) were going to get As, once they figured out how to put an argument together. The kids who'd maybe read Harry Potter a few years back (this was ten years ago) would end up with Bs, or Cs if they slacked off. The STEM folks who read technical manuals were solid Cs, and Bs if they worked at it. The at least half who'd literally never read anything outside the classroom were going to struggle to pass. I taught my ass off, and spent unlimited office hours with anyone who'd come to them, but there's only so much that class-work can do.
This article makes it sound like it's only got worse since.
°The real problem was that they didn't read. Sadly, I could pretty much predict the grade-distribution on the first day of class with one question: "have you ever read anything for fun?"
The students who regularly read books and magazines (hell, even comic books) were going to get As, once they figured out how to put an argument together. The kids who'd maybe read Harry Potter a few years back (this was ten years ago) would end up with Bs, or Cs if they slacked off. The STEM folks who read technical manuals were solid Cs, and Bs if they worked at it. The at least half who'd literally never read anything outside the classroom were going to struggle to pass. I taught my ass off, and spent unlimited office hours with anyone who'd come to them, but there's only so much that class-work can do.
This article makes it sound like it's only got worse since.
I hear you. I can write docs, but I can't make you read them :)
I'd abstract this and say that communication is key, but the form of communication can vary. People who don't read don't value that form, and don't write. They may prefer the video approach (ie show and tell.) They consume video and these days with Zoom create video as well.
Of course video isn't always a good way to communicate. It lacks searchability unless well chaptered (and transcribed). AI is helping with that.
Writing is also easier to store, and consume, non digitally. So it's more "permanent".
Your insight though is useful. People who don't read don't value writing as important. And maybe in the future it won't matter. And yeah, you're getting them too young, before they've really come to grips with the real world and it's requirements.
If it's any consolation I read voraciously as a child, didn't take English at college, and got (my only) C for English in high school. So you never know what seeds you are planting or how they'll grow.
I'd abstract this and say that communication is key, but the form of communication can vary. People who don't read don't value that form, and don't write. They may prefer the video approach (ie show and tell.) They consume video and these days with Zoom create video as well.
Of course video isn't always a good way to communicate. It lacks searchability unless well chaptered (and transcribed). AI is helping with that.
Writing is also easier to store, and consume, non digitally. So it's more "permanent".
Your insight though is useful. People who don't read don't value writing as important. And maybe in the future it won't matter. And yeah, you're getting them too young, before they've really come to grips with the real world and it's requirements.
If it's any consolation I read voraciously as a child, didn't take English at college, and got (my only) C for English in high school. So you never know what seeds you are planting or how they'll grow.
Wait, but the point of the piece is that although college has always been transactional, behavior has changed.
If so, why would transactional-ism be the cause?
Read on:
> The average student has seen college as basically transactional for as long as I’ve been doing this. They go through the motions and maybe learn something along the way, but it is all in service to the only conception of the good life they can imagine: a job with middle-class wages. I’ve mostly made my peace with that, do my best to give them a taste of the life of the mind, and celebrate the successes.
And then, crucially:
> Things have changed. Ted Gioia describes modern students as checked-out, phone-addicted zombies.
If so, why would transactional-ism be the cause?
Read on:
> The average student has seen college as basically transactional for as long as I’ve been doing this. They go through the motions and maybe learn something along the way, but it is all in service to the only conception of the good life they can imagine: a job with middle-class wages. I’ve mostly made my peace with that, do my best to give them a taste of the life of the mind, and celebrate the successes.
And then, crucially:
> Things have changed. Ted Gioia describes modern students as checked-out, phone-addicted zombies.
"Things changed" is the part I disagree with. The students just have better tools to respond to the same incentives. My cohort ~15 years ago would have used just as much chatgpt if it had been available, and our spelling would have been just as bad if AIM had autocorrect when we were kids.
When better technology and lower standards allow disengaged students to pass, what you get is more disengaged students.
Don't hate the player — hate the game.
When better technology and lower standards allow disengaged students to pass, what you get is more disengaged students.
Don't hate the player — hate the game.
I don't think the author of the piece is saying there has been a cultural change among students, emanating from within. Rather the thesis is that smartphones are the culprit. "Things changed" can encompass the proliferation of smartphones.
Sure, but the argument is still that the smartphones aren’t the root cause. It’s the transactional nature of the thing. Can’t fail students because money would go down, so keep passing them as they get better equipped to ignore you and have reduced requirements to get a passing grade.
The thing that’s changed is how much the transactional nature favors the lazy students, not the smartphones specifically.
The reason the argument is so bad that “it’s the smartphones” is because that implies an easy solution that is external to the academic system, when the root cause is internal to the system.
The thing that’s changed is how much the transactional nature favors the lazy students, not the smartphones specifically.
The reason the argument is so bad that “it’s the smartphones” is because that implies an easy solution that is external to the academic system, when the root cause is internal to the system.
Why would the transactional nature favor students now though? What’s the mechanism for that, that’s internal to the system?
In other words it sounds like you’re arguing that the root cause is “the transactional nature” but that’s the one thing that hasn’t changed. So why is it worse now?
What is it that makes students “better equipped to ignore you”?
In other words it sounds like you’re arguing that the root cause is “the transactional nature” but that’s the one thing that hasn’t changed. So why is it worse now?
What is it that makes students “better equipped to ignore you”?
Because the universities themselves have been constantly lowering standards. It was always a transaction but there was a price. That price is locked in a race to the bottom because administrations and professors don't care about standards.
> A college degree (especially from good old State U) serves first and foremost as a white-collar job permit.
Only so long as the college doesn't devalue the credential.
If I interview a few people with a CS degree from College A and I find they don't know the basics of programming - then the credential loses value; why would I bother interviewing people from such a college?
So colleges have to balance the needs of their stakeholders - employers/ graduates want the credential to be a sign of education; and current students who want good grades and less work.
The "implied terms of the transaction" have always been that current students have to learn enough that they're not devaluing the credential.
Only so long as the college doesn't devalue the credential.
If I interview a few people with a CS degree from College A and I find they don't know the basics of programming - then the credential loses value; why would I bother interviewing people from such a college?
So colleges have to balance the needs of their stakeholders - employers/ graduates want the credential to be a sign of education; and current students who want good grades and less work.
The "implied terms of the transaction" have always been that current students have to learn enough that they're not devaluing the credential.
I have interviewed prospective employees who come in with no academic credentials all the way through to those who have completed degree programs at one of the top 50 universities. Regardless of university, students are individuals and shouldn’t be given more or less credit because of the name of the school they attended.
Full. Stop.
That said: plenty of big name research universities are housing folks who do little except study coding interviewing questions for FAANG and expect you to be impressed that they spent 9-18 months at one.
As an aside: I don’t care that someone is ex-Amazon; it’s their work that will impress me, not where they worked previously and were presumably let go because they couldn’t hack it.
Let’s not lump all students into groups simply because of the college they attended. I went to a regional university because they offered the biggest D1 athletic scholarship for early signing; not because I cared about anything other than free education. Similarly, my masters was free through my employer.
Full. Stop.
That said: plenty of big name research universities are housing folks who do little except study coding interviewing questions for FAANG and expect you to be impressed that they spent 9-18 months at one.
As an aside: I don’t care that someone is ex-Amazon; it’s their work that will impress me, not where they worked previously and were presumably let go because they couldn’t hack it.
Let’s not lump all students into groups simply because of the college they attended. I went to a regional university because they offered the biggest D1 athletic scholarship for early signing; not because I cared about anything other than free education. Similarly, my masters was free through my employer.
While I agree with you in practice, institution name (of their school, prior employer, ...) is, overall, a hard to escape filter when you're staring down the barrel of thousands of applications per open role.
There are other early-out filters you can use, but none of them are perfect in quickly reducing the application count to a tractable number for your HR/hiring managers/engineers to tackle.
There are other early-out filters you can use, but none of them are perfect in quickly reducing the application count to a tractable number for your HR/hiring managers/engineers to tackle.
[deleted]
I agree that the trend is not sustainable, but that's not the students' responsibility — they're just responding to incentives.
Either institutions maintain their standards or employers stop relying on the signaling value of the credential, and both are difficult coordination problems until the moment it becomes too late. I don't see a third option.
Either institutions maintain their standards or employers stop relying on the signaling value of the credential, and both are difficult coordination problems until the moment it becomes too late. I don't see a third option.
> or employers stop relying on the signaling value of the credential
Employers haven't recognized such signalling in my lifetime, if ever.
However, there are a sufficient number of professions (e.g. medicine) where it is legally required to attain accreditation through the college system to keep the aura of being job creators. The average teenager, with no life experience other than sitting in the classroom for the past 12 years of their life and playing soccer on the weekend, deciding what to do after high school doesn't know the difference.
To make matters more complex, said teenagers don't recognize that not all people are equal. They hear things like "high school dropouts make x% less than college graduates" and think that means they must go to college to not suffer the same fate, not realizing that the high school dropout cohort is dominated by those with disabilities and other life challenges that prevents them from earning more in industry. Surprising to many, handing a Harvard degree over on a silver platter to someone with severe autism will not cure what ails them.
So there is really no risk to the system. The incentives are by and large already based on misunderstandings with so much religion in place now to keep those misunderstanding alive and are otherwise driven by legal requirements that aren't apt to go away.
Besides, even if all that is destroyed, the primary reason one goes to college is still for the dating pool. Academic rigour remains necessary to keep the quality of potential partners up. Tinder and the like may have tried to encroach on that, but I suspect it has only made it more desirable to be on/near campus to increase the likelihood of a match. Users of those services aren't searching the world over to find "the one".
Employers haven't recognized such signalling in my lifetime, if ever.
However, there are a sufficient number of professions (e.g. medicine) where it is legally required to attain accreditation through the college system to keep the aura of being job creators. The average teenager, with no life experience other than sitting in the classroom for the past 12 years of their life and playing soccer on the weekend, deciding what to do after high school doesn't know the difference.
To make matters more complex, said teenagers don't recognize that not all people are equal. They hear things like "high school dropouts make x% less than college graduates" and think that means they must go to college to not suffer the same fate, not realizing that the high school dropout cohort is dominated by those with disabilities and other life challenges that prevents them from earning more in industry. Surprising to many, handing a Harvard degree over on a silver platter to someone with severe autism will not cure what ails them.
So there is really no risk to the system. The incentives are by and large already based on misunderstandings with so much religion in place now to keep those misunderstanding alive and are otherwise driven by legal requirements that aren't apt to go away.
Besides, even if all that is destroyed, the primary reason one goes to college is still for the dating pool. Academic rigour remains necessary to keep the quality of potential partners up. Tinder and the like may have tried to encroach on that, but I suspect it has only made it more desirable to be on/near campus to increase the likelihood of a match. Users of those services aren't searching the world over to find "the one".
[deleted]
Yeah, and the nature of the transaction evolves over time in a way that makes aging professors uncomfortable.
I get the sense the author just doesn’t have the same rapport with students they likely once did. Students stop coming to class and don’t go to office hours and they don’t know why.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes.
I went to college 20 years ago and lots of professors distributed slides and lecture notes to students. I assume it’s even more common now. Yes, I wouldn’t ask a speaker to let me read their private notes, but that’s not how PowerPoint slides shown in class are generally perceived.
I get the sense the author just doesn’t have the same rapport with students they likely once did. Students stop coming to class and don’t go to office hours and they don’t know why.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes.
I went to college 20 years ago and lots of professors distributed slides and lecture notes to students. I assume it’s even more common now. Yes, I wouldn’t ask a speaker to let me read their private notes, but that’s not how PowerPoint slides shown in class are generally perceived.
[deleted]
Agreed. A course that did not distribute slides / lecture notes 35 years ago when I studied (well known engineering school in Canada) was considered annoying / the prof trying to force students to attend.
> It is a transaction.
That is a purely rational take, but people are seldom rational. My pet theory is that inertia is a huge reason why people choose college. Majority of people who go to college do it as a continuation of 10-12 years of continuous schooling (or partying). As they climb educational or social hierarchies they are constantly reminded that college is a next step. Thus going to college feels far more familiar and less scary than joining the workforce. Thus, going to college is a default choice for many.
After the gut decision is made it can be wrapped into whatever rational argument.
That is a purely rational take, but people are seldom rational. My pet theory is that inertia is a huge reason why people choose college. Majority of people who go to college do it as a continuation of 10-12 years of continuous schooling (or partying). As they climb educational or social hierarchies they are constantly reminded that college is a next step. Thus going to college feels far more familiar and less scary than joining the workforce. Thus, going to college is a default choice for many.
After the gut decision is made it can be wrapped into whatever rational argument.
The degree is still highly preferred (if not a hard requirement) for basically all white collar/middle class jobs. It's still, generally, a +EV proposition, so I don't think it's a convincing claim that it's just a post hoc rationalization.
That's part of it, but the author acknowledges that college has been transactional for quite a while. What has exacerbated the issue was COVID and the rise of extremely potent, addictive social media. I wouldn't be surprised if we look back on social media as the digital equivalent of children drinking and smoking weed, i.e. something that causes permanent damage to one's brain.
The technology may be amplifying the effects because that's what technology does but it is not a change to the underlying dynamics.
"The average college student today" is not uniquely lazy or lacking in character. They just have better tools to respond to the same incentives.
I'm not saying it's good - it's clearly an unsustainable trend, but the students are not the ones driving it, so they're not equipped to stop it.
"The average college student today" is not uniquely lazy or lacking in character. They just have better tools to respond to the same incentives.
I'm not saying it's good - it's clearly an unsustainable trend, but the students are not the ones driving it, so they're not equipped to stop it.
>"The average college student today" is not uniquely lazy or lacking in character.
Idk, it's totally possible that as COVID happened and they watched the government lock them in their homes away from each other and forced them to miss important moments in their lives (remote graduations for example), then they watched the rise of EZ-Cheat systems (ChatGPT) which made their creators extremely wealthy, combined with crypto frauds (that our own President does in his free time), they started to think that the way to get ahead in life was to lack character and be lazy...
Idk, it's totally possible that as COVID happened and they watched the government lock them in their homes away from each other and forced them to miss important moments in their lives (remote graduations for example), then they watched the rise of EZ-Cheat systems (ChatGPT) which made their creators extremely wealthy, combined with crypto frauds (that our own President does in his free time), they started to think that the way to get ahead in life was to lack character and be lazy...
Isn't it? I mean, the "work hard, save your pennies" method is being intentionally attacked and the "invest everything in crypto" is being rewarded. EVERYTHING is done for the next quarter - and you expect students to learn that "patience in savings and working your way up the ladder" is the way to success?
The transaction has changed a great deal though. GPA used to be more heavily weighted and professors used to be more essential for references. You might bring your transcript to an interview. Now, it seems to be all about projects. Coursework has dwindled in relevance.
Goodhart's Law in action
> A college degree (especially from good old State U) serves first and foremost as a white-collar job permit.
It’s worth pointing out that this is a perception that has been cultivated. Position the degree as first and foremost a job credential, cut state support, and force students and their parents to directly bear the cost for this supposedly individualized benefit through higher tuition. “The customer is always right” and no learning need occur.
“Starving the Beast” is a documentary on this topic: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5444928/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_p...
It’s worth pointing out that this is a perception that has been cultivated. Position the degree as first and foremost a job credential, cut state support, and force students and their parents to directly bear the cost for this supposedly individualized benefit through higher tuition. “The customer is always right” and no learning need occur.
“Starving the Beast” is a documentary on this topic: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5444928/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_p...
I can't respond to any specifics of the documentary, but it looks to me like the universities themselves are the biggest cultivators of this perception, with the goal of increased enrollment.
If a college degree wasn't so important in the job market, do you think there we'd be handing out even 1% of the ones there are today? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of unemployed professors.
If a college degree wasn't so important in the job market, do you think there we'd be handing out even 1% of the ones there are today? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of unemployed professors.
I see state funded education as making the problem worse. The market just reacts to what is available, and funding everyone to go to college, whether or not its useful or resourceful to do so means companies have a large enough pool of applicants to make it a requirement.
I could see even, that employers themselves would take up the cost to train if they lacked qualified applicants. Imagine for example there wasn't a billion CS students. All the company still need programmers, so what are they going to do?
IMO, instead of funding universities, simply give people a stipend to be used for some sort of educational purpose.
I could see even, that employers themselves would take up the cost to train if they lacked qualified applicants. Imagine for example there wasn't a billion CS students. All the company still need programmers, so what are they going to do?
IMO, instead of funding universities, simply give people a stipend to be used for some sort of educational purpose.
Not only that but he is shooting the messenger
> My psych prof friends who teach statistics have similarly lamented having to water down the content over time.
They (the prof class) created this situation. They could have upheld their standards and seen the number of students go down but they preferred to fill their classrooms at the expense of quality.
This is like a manager who is complaining that no one can code while offering McDonalds hourly rates.
> My psych prof friends who teach statistics have similarly lamented having to water down the content over time.
They (the prof class) created this situation. They could have upheld their standards and seen the number of students go down but they preferred to fill their classrooms at the expense of quality.
This is like a manager who is complaining that no one can code while offering McDonalds hourly rates.
Professor here. We did not create it, we responded to administration prioritizing profit over performance and prestige. They passed the decision down to us instructors by threatening our employment if we failed too many students. Since tenure is heavily dependent on student outcomes, giving a student a lower grade than what they think they deserved will almost certainly result in negative feedback, which threatens your tenure. For non-tenured faculty it could result in a contract non-renewal.
I failed a student recently. He did no work for the entire quarter, then insisted I tutor him through all the homework assignments until he passed with an A. I said no, you failed. I was verbally harassed and threatened for weeks by the student, had other staff actively harassed and threatened, heard a member of staff get physically assaulted by the student, and the administration ultimately sided with the student. They came to me and said "You will run a private 1-person classroom with just this student so he can make up the work and his graduation date won't be impacted. Also we won't pay you for this, and we're going to 'cluster' the class so it doesn't show up on your credit load. If you refuse, it may impact the future of your program, and your tenured role."
In other words, I was heavily punished for failing a student by being assigned an extra class for no pay, in such a way that they can avoid paying me more later that year for a course overload, and my job was threatened. Why would I fail a student if this is the outcome?
At this point failing even a single student can lead to loss of employment. This may sound ridiculous, but my college just slashed 30% of its programs, cut a dozen tenured professors (including me), shut down all bachelor's programs, and killed all computer science programs. They cited low enrollment, but they also said "Even if we ran your programs at full capacity we would be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Process that for a second. About a dozen tenured professors are now unemployed because a school is so financially mismanaged that even in maxed classrooms they are losing money. This is the reality at many colleges, and it's about to get worse with the DoE and other funding cuts.
As people in engineering regularly say, when you use KPIs to determine performance and promotions, your workers will maximize those KPIs. Professors are no different when it comes to moving up the career ladder, or achieving employment security.
I failed a student recently. He did no work for the entire quarter, then insisted I tutor him through all the homework assignments until he passed with an A. I said no, you failed. I was verbally harassed and threatened for weeks by the student, had other staff actively harassed and threatened, heard a member of staff get physically assaulted by the student, and the administration ultimately sided with the student. They came to me and said "You will run a private 1-person classroom with just this student so he can make up the work and his graduation date won't be impacted. Also we won't pay you for this, and we're going to 'cluster' the class so it doesn't show up on your credit load. If you refuse, it may impact the future of your program, and your tenured role."
In other words, I was heavily punished for failing a student by being assigned an extra class for no pay, in such a way that they can avoid paying me more later that year for a course overload, and my job was threatened. Why would I fail a student if this is the outcome?
At this point failing even a single student can lead to loss of employment. This may sound ridiculous, but my college just slashed 30% of its programs, cut a dozen tenured professors (including me), shut down all bachelor's programs, and killed all computer science programs. They cited low enrollment, but they also said "Even if we ran your programs at full capacity we would be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Process that for a second. About a dozen tenured professors are now unemployed because a school is so financially mismanaged that even in maxed classrooms they are losing money. This is the reality at many colleges, and it's about to get worse with the DoE and other funding cuts.
As people in engineering regularly say, when you use KPIs to determine performance and promotions, your workers will maximize those KPIs. Professors are no different when it comes to moving up the career ladder, or achieving employment security.
[deleted]
You are just going in circles to justify that you are the victim of all of this "non sense". That's like a guy saying "I didn't want to break the law but my employer forced me to it and he would have fired me, etc. etc. I am not saying you broke any laws but drawing a parallel here.
Professors are not (at least not supposed) to be a decoration in a University. They are what makes a University; or break it. You have all the leverage. You accepted the situation, went along with it and now it's backfiring.
Professors are not (at least not supposed) to be a decoration in a University. They are what makes a University; or break it. You have all the leverage. You accepted the situation, went along with it and now it's backfiring.
That’s like saying the workers have all the leverage. They make the product, they should have all the power.
Unfortunately, leverage in the workplace comes from controlling the budget, which is the administrator’s job, not a professor’s.
Unfortunately, leverage in the workplace comes from controlling the budget, which is the administrator’s job, not a professor’s.
When workers have leverage they unionize and can force management. If professors can't have a leverage in this society, then all hope is lost. We are talking about people who are supposed to be at the top echelon of society.
This is a very late response (I am overseas) but I do like your impassioned comments. That said, I think there might be some misunderstandings about US Labor Laws and operations as they relate to education and unionization.
> Professors are not (at least not supposed) to be a decoration in a University.
Our names and reputations are nothing more than an enticing line in a marketing pitch. A way to say "You could be taught by a Nobel prize winner!"
My college's pitch for me is "This person worked for Beyonce and made AAA games! They'll get you a job!"
As the article stated, college in the US is now transactional. Put money in, get degree out. Put lots of money in a famous-name college, get more opportunities in the US labor market. They are not students anymore, they are customers buying a product. The product they are paying for is a piece of paper that gives better access to the US labor market. The US labor market increasingly expects a college degree even for even the most asinine roles.
When you're spending 5-to-6 figures and 4 years of your life for access to the entry-level US labor market, you are a customer, and learning and integrity take a backseat. When an institution cares the most about growth and profit, they are a business focused on increasing their capital. This is not to say that capitalism is bad, just that the incentive structure shifts from educational outcomes to revenue-per-student. In fact there is an explicit term for this, Full-Time Equivalent, or FTE. More FTE = more money = institutional growth.
> You have all the leverage
I do? Are you sure it's not the person who pays my paychecks, guarantees my health insurance, and can fire me at the end of the year since contract renewals are annual? Are you sure that the leverage and 'forcing management' that you say I can do isn't dependent on union support for an action I wish to take, since being unionized means I waived my right to individual actions?
It would be appropriate to say "The union should have all the leverage." This is because the union has an exclusivity agreement with the college, such that you cannot have non-union instructors teaching at the college. However our union is extremely weak, and struggles to take even the most basic opposition stances against the college. Our collective bargaining team gets weaker at negotiating every year; IT/CS professors took a $5000 pay cut this year because the union gave up our salaries during negotiation. Also worth noting that the college is hinting that they will not longer work with the union in the next contract negotiation, and move to individual instructor negotiations. This will enable them to lay off all tenured instructors and re-hire them as part-time adjuncts with a 70% pay cut. They just fired me, and they have told me they plan to extend that exact offer if I want to continue directing the program. I have already accepted a role elsewhere.
People who aren't in education generally read that tenure means "Job for life." and "They can't fire you". Maybe in the 20th century, but tenure doesn't work the way anymore, and hasn't since the 2000s. There's also a ton of politics. In the event of a union it is the union vs the college, not you vs the college. You have no individual leverage, you are dependent on union support.
> When workers have leverage they unionize and can force management.
Force them to do what? We ARE unionized; we are members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Since we are unionized we waive our right to individual arbitration, and individual protests or strikes (Wildcat Strikes) are explicitly illegal. We must go to the union, tell them the situation, and they decide if they wish to pursue action against the school in solidarity. If the union decides to not pursue action we cannot go alone. Conversely, if the school calls a 'state of emergency' they can take actions without union approval and with the union waiving their ability to object to actions, and eliminating their leverage.
And a state of emergency is exactly what they called this year. They did it in response to this https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/25/s... which is going to put them $5.5 million in debt in the next 3 years. They have told the union "We don't care, sue us. If we don't do this, we shut down, and everybody loses. If you sue us or strike, we shut down, and everybody loses."
The union has stated they do not plan to take action, but have sent many strongly worded emails ending in "In Solidarity" or "Union Strong". This isn't to say that unions are bad, in fact I'm very pro union. This is to say that not all unions are equal, and leverage is actually dependent on the union's overall strength and the overall power dynamic.
Your comments suggest that I am at fault here, and not my employer nor my union for taking inaction at the issues I've raised. I am proud to say that as a unionized public employee our collectively-bargained contract is publicly available for view online. If you are curious I am happy to send a link to you. You will quickly realize that it is two groups constantly speaking for you, you have very little recourse or individual agency, and the 'leverage' you claim I have or should have as a union does actually not exist.
Glad to be leaving this college.
> Professors are not (at least not supposed) to be a decoration in a University.
Our names and reputations are nothing more than an enticing line in a marketing pitch. A way to say "You could be taught by a Nobel prize winner!"
My college's pitch for me is "This person worked for Beyonce and made AAA games! They'll get you a job!"
As the article stated, college in the US is now transactional. Put money in, get degree out. Put lots of money in a famous-name college, get more opportunities in the US labor market. They are not students anymore, they are customers buying a product. The product they are paying for is a piece of paper that gives better access to the US labor market. The US labor market increasingly expects a college degree even for even the most asinine roles.
When you're spending 5-to-6 figures and 4 years of your life for access to the entry-level US labor market, you are a customer, and learning and integrity take a backseat. When an institution cares the most about growth and profit, they are a business focused on increasing their capital. This is not to say that capitalism is bad, just that the incentive structure shifts from educational outcomes to revenue-per-student. In fact there is an explicit term for this, Full-Time Equivalent, or FTE. More FTE = more money = institutional growth.
> You have all the leverage
I do? Are you sure it's not the person who pays my paychecks, guarantees my health insurance, and can fire me at the end of the year since contract renewals are annual? Are you sure that the leverage and 'forcing management' that you say I can do isn't dependent on union support for an action I wish to take, since being unionized means I waived my right to individual actions?
It would be appropriate to say "The union should have all the leverage." This is because the union has an exclusivity agreement with the college, such that you cannot have non-union instructors teaching at the college. However our union is extremely weak, and struggles to take even the most basic opposition stances against the college. Our collective bargaining team gets weaker at negotiating every year; IT/CS professors took a $5000 pay cut this year because the union gave up our salaries during negotiation. Also worth noting that the college is hinting that they will not longer work with the union in the next contract negotiation, and move to individual instructor negotiations. This will enable them to lay off all tenured instructors and re-hire them as part-time adjuncts with a 70% pay cut. They just fired me, and they have told me they plan to extend that exact offer if I want to continue directing the program. I have already accepted a role elsewhere.
People who aren't in education generally read that tenure means "Job for life." and "They can't fire you". Maybe in the 20th century, but tenure doesn't work the way anymore, and hasn't since the 2000s. There's also a ton of politics. In the event of a union it is the union vs the college, not you vs the college. You have no individual leverage, you are dependent on union support.
> When workers have leverage they unionize and can force management.
Force them to do what? We ARE unionized; we are members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Since we are unionized we waive our right to individual arbitration, and individual protests or strikes (Wildcat Strikes) are explicitly illegal. We must go to the union, tell them the situation, and they decide if they wish to pursue action against the school in solidarity. If the union decides to not pursue action we cannot go alone. Conversely, if the school calls a 'state of emergency' they can take actions without union approval and with the union waiving their ability to object to actions, and eliminating their leverage.
And a state of emergency is exactly what they called this year. They did it in response to this https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/25/s... which is going to put them $5.5 million in debt in the next 3 years. They have told the union "We don't care, sue us. If we don't do this, we shut down, and everybody loses. If you sue us or strike, we shut down, and everybody loses."
The union has stated they do not plan to take action, but have sent many strongly worded emails ending in "In Solidarity" or "Union Strong". This isn't to say that unions are bad, in fact I'm very pro union. This is to say that not all unions are equal, and leverage is actually dependent on the union's overall strength and the overall power dynamic.
Your comments suggest that I am at fault here, and not my employer nor my union for taking inaction at the issues I've raised. I am proud to say that as a unionized public employee our collectively-bargained contract is publicly available for view online. If you are curious I am happy to send a link to you. You will quickly realize that it is two groups constantly speaking for you, you have very little recourse or individual agency, and the 'leverage' you claim I have or should have as a union does actually not exist.
Glad to be leaving this college.
> That’s like saying the workers have all the leverage.
...they do? You can shuffle money all you want, if nobody can write the fucking code then you don't have software. I imagine it works much the same in any other field.
...they do? You can shuffle money all you want, if nobody can write the fucking code then you don't have software. I imagine it works much the same in any other field.
Did you finish reading? The author said later on that holding the bar high wasn't an option since it would risk his job. The blame should be on the universities, not on the professors who don't have much power to fix the problem.
But how far do you go with the blame?
If the universities hold the bar high, they'll risk their funding from parents not wanting to enroll their child and the government not funding a failing school. The blame should be on society?
I think professors are in a good place to actually step up and say no. They're all highly educated individuals who can likely leave academia and get jobs in the private sector. They're best set up to break the cycle.
If the universities hold the bar high, they'll risk their funding from parents not wanting to enroll their child and the government not funding a failing school. The blame should be on society?
I think professors are in a good place to actually step up and say no. They're all highly educated individuals who can likely leave academia and get jobs in the private sector. They're best set up to break the cycle.
I don’t agree personally. I went to school about 10 ago to a private University (nearly full ride because universities used to care about PSAT performance for no clear reason). My school was heavy on co-ops meaning it was more job outcome focused than most.
In my opinion it was mostly a rite of passage thing. It was the first time I was granted independence including personal responsibility, a brand new social network, sex, etc.
It was just adulthood with training wheels. I’m not going to argue that sounds like an ideal social structure but it was very useful to me. The raw alternative of jumping into the workforce probably would have led to bad outcomes even if it all worked out economically.
The stepping stone to employment felt like it was just sort of assumed like finishing high school. I felt nothing getting either diploma.
I might feel some serious existential dread if the market I was entering resembled the one now though.
In my opinion it was mostly a rite of passage thing. It was the first time I was granted independence including personal responsibility, a brand new social network, sex, etc.
It was just adulthood with training wheels. I’m not going to argue that sounds like an ideal social structure but it was very useful to me. The raw alternative of jumping into the workforce probably would have led to bad outcomes even if it all worked out economically.
The stepping stone to employment felt like it was just sort of assumed like finishing high school. I felt nothing getting either diploma.
I might feel some serious existential dread if the market I was entering resembled the one now though.
>The number of students there because they want to learn a subject rounds to zero.
I was one of those 'rounds to zero' students, in the physical sciences, long ago. I wanted to learn how to verify a hypothesis by looking at the evidence. And after 4 years, I was greatly disappointed by the lack of significant lab exposure. What we did get was cookbook labs, mostly on the very basic stuff. What we also got after that was theory, theory and more theory. Usually from unenthused teachers, going through the motions. From my perspective, it was mostly a waste of time.
Years later I learned what Feynman meant when he said "Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." Maybe if I'd heard that, I've have dropped out after two years instead of hoping I'd get to the part where someone cared.
I was one of those 'rounds to zero' students, in the physical sciences, long ago. I wanted to learn how to verify a hypothesis by looking at the evidence. And after 4 years, I was greatly disappointed by the lack of significant lab exposure. What we did get was cookbook labs, mostly on the very basic stuff. What we also got after that was theory, theory and more theory. Usually from unenthused teachers, going through the motions. From my perspective, it was mostly a waste of time.
Years later I learned what Feynman meant when he said "Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." Maybe if I'd heard that, I've have dropped out after two years instead of hoping I'd get to the part where someone cared.
I think most teachers are not naive wrt the transactional perception of education in their students. However, what keeps a passionate teacher going is the belief that, if they do their job well, at least some significant subset of students will take genuine interest in the material. I don't think it's naive to hope for that, I've seen this happen a lot when I was a student.
What OOP is lamenting is that that's no longer possible.
What OOP is lamenting is that that's no longer possible.
I think plenty of students are there because they want to learn a subject, singular. Everything else is just the unrelated overhead they're stuck with for their white collar job permit.
Does that mean it would be better if the majority of people went to trade schools and left the universities for the minority who want an education for it's own sake?
The reason why I wanted to study CS in university was because I was curious, not because of possible job offers you get if you have a degree. When I applied I thought that this was the primary motivator for others as well. Turns out I was very wrong, although I did meet a few students who were studying mainly for their curiosity.
They have a university for this now, its called Western Governors University.
They did the steps, got all the regional accreditations etc. but its all self driven and structured to cater to speed running a college degree.
You can learn alot at WGU, don't get me wrong, but they are clearly just fine if you are there simply to speed run getting that diploma.
They did the steps, got all the regional accreditations etc. but its all self driven and structured to cater to speed running a college degree.
You can learn alot at WGU, don't get me wrong, but they are clearly just fine if you are there simply to speed run getting that diploma.
Sure, but not all degrees are equal. Institutions have reputations based on how smart / effective their graduates tend to be. So by making it harder for the careless ones to graduate, a university can enhance the value of the degree for those that do. Even with the transactional attitude, it would behoove students to want to be pushed.
Yet institutions don't do this so your reasoning is faulty. Particularly at the "value of the degree" line. There are few, if any, degrees that provide value and even fewer that provide employable skills.
Entrenched companies use this to their advantage and have their own recruitment pipelines.
Entrenched companies use this to their advantage and have their own recruitment pipelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43465278
This may be fake, but as somebody who went to a school that took academic rigor very seriously, I'm confident that my degree is the most valuable thing I own. Recruiters from both startups and entrenched companies are constantly reinforcing that belief.
The market for degrees may be pretty skewed, but that doesn't mean it's not a real market with supply/demand dynamics
This may be fake, but as somebody who went to a school that took academic rigor very seriously, I'm confident that my degree is the most valuable thing I own. Recruiters from both startups and entrenched companies are constantly reinforcing that belief.
The market for degrees may be pretty skewed, but that doesn't mean it's not a real market with supply/demand dynamics
That is true, but I don't think the students are the ones responsible for the second and third order effects of maintaining academic rigor. They're just playing the game they're given.
Ya, the current students do not, but future students do. They're the ones who will take their business elsewhere.
Schools with slipping standards may not see negative effects in the short term, but people are waking up to the fact that a lot of degrees are nowhere near worth the tuition, and the first schools to go bust will tend to be the ones with the worst cost/benefit ratio.
Schools with slipping standards may not see negative effects in the short term, but people are waking up to the fact that a lot of degrees are nowhere near worth the tuition, and the first schools to go bust will tend to be the ones with the worst cost/benefit ratio.
I agree that holding the line and failing the whole class if the whole class deserves it is the only hope universities have of breaking the feedback loop, but the author seems to think that represents an insurmountable coordination problem.
[deleted]
That’s why most students will never truly find a job – they’re all too busy looking.
What do you mean by that? That doesn’t really make sense
Makes perfect sense. The things you do to look for a job don’t help you do the job.
[deleted]
It's telling this sentence has the student as one to blame, when it's a structural issue and the weight of the blame rests more heavily on the shoulders of the universities.
> The number of students there because they want to learn a subject rounds to zero.
Further - even if someone wants to learn these subjects, most don't see the value in paying for a college course to learn them. Close to no one, after receiving a college degree in a subject, says "I want to learn more about X, I'm going to go ahead and pay $4,000 to take a class in it at the nearby college."
Plenty of people learn things after they graduate. Just about everyone does so in a better manner than a college course. Colleges are only viable because they dangle degrees over students' heads, and then they complain that students are only coming for the degrees.
Further - even if someone wants to learn these subjects, most don't see the value in paying for a college course to learn them. Close to no one, after receiving a college degree in a subject, says "I want to learn more about X, I'm going to go ahead and pay $4,000 to take a class in it at the nearby college."
Plenty of people learn things after they graduate. Just about everyone does so in a better manner than a college course. Colleges are only viable because they dangle degrees over students' heads, and then they complain that students are only coming for the degrees.
The problem is that the value the students get out of the transaction is being lowered by their own actions in the class
Well said, believe this is it
I can’t find the exact citation at the moment, but I believe that American students were described as viewing the education process as transactional in a wider sense by Max Weber in 1905 (Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism I think?)
I can say at least that it was a major point in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974).
And now the white-collar jobs are being replaced by vibe AI app-making. It seems most of college now isn't for most people. Maybe the kids can save their money and just make vibe apps.
> What has changed exactly? Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Last semester across all sections, my average student missed two weeks of class.
My brother and I graduated from university a little over 4 years ago and we were both top students (he studied music and I studied applied math). There were classes where he and I (without exaggeration) skipped more than 90% of the lectures.
I understand that some professors view this as disrepsectful, but when your lectures consist of simply reading off the lecture notes that you're going to upload online anyway, lectures become a waste of time that could be better spent with more studying on our own.
My brother and I graduated from university a little over 4 years ago and we were both top students (he studied music and I studied applied math). There were classes where he and I (without exaggeration) skipped more than 90% of the lectures.
I understand that some professors view this as disrepsectful, but when your lectures consist of simply reading off the lecture notes that you're going to upload online anyway, lectures become a waste of time that could be better spent with more studying on our own.
I think this is a good point. I found the following sentences of the article shocking:
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes.
It makes you wonder whether the lecturer actually values the time of the students. Having to take notes because they are not provided, rather than getting value from a lecture due to interactive participation sounds like a waste of time. This sounds exactly like the type of lecture I would have skipped.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes.
It makes you wonder whether the lecturer actually values the time of the students. Having to take notes because they are not provided, rather than getting value from a lecture due to interactive participation sounds like a waste of time. This sounds exactly like the type of lecture I would have skipped.
Personally I always ask for lecture/presentation slides - it's common practice in computing and related fields. Technical conferences (be they industry-focused like Nvidia GTC or more research-focused like Usenix ATC) routinely provide presentation slides and recordings. Both are extremely valuable.
I understand that a professor may dream of lectures passing through students' brains before being recorded in high-quality, personalized notes. The reality is that lectures are easier to follow when you aren't frantically trying to copy down the lecture slides as well as what the instructor is saying (after all, it might be on the exam!)
Presentation slides are valuable instructional materials, and withholding them is unlikely to improve learning. In my experience, the best lecture-based courses (in science/math/engineering at least) provide material in at least three ways: in the textbook or readings, in the spoken lectures, and in presentation slides or provided lecture notes – with reinforcement and active learning via problem sets, labs, and/or projects. Interactive review sessions, discussion sections, and tutorials can also help.
I understand that a professor may dream of lectures passing through students' brains before being recorded in high-quality, personalized notes. The reality is that lectures are easier to follow when you aren't frantically trying to copy down the lecture slides as well as what the instructor is saying (after all, it might be on the exam!)
Presentation slides are valuable instructional materials, and withholding them is unlikely to improve learning. In my experience, the best lecture-based courses (in science/math/engineering at least) provide material in at least three ways: in the textbook or readings, in the spoken lectures, and in presentation slides or provided lecture notes – with reinforcement and active learning via problem sets, labs, and/or projects. Interactive review sessions, discussion sections, and tutorials can also help.
>The reality is that lectures are easier to follow when you aren't frantically trying to copy down the lecture slides as well as what the instructor is saying (after all, it might be on the exam!)
This is massively true IMO. Taking detailed notes during a lecture is an absurd waste of attention - we have universally-available recording technologies. Use them.
They're used professionally too, and there's essentially zero chance that they'll go away, it's much more realistic to use them in classes. This is something that has changed with phones and computers becoming universal - college needs to adapt to it.
Use lecture time to do things you can't do with a recording: interact.
(Yes I'm thoroughly aware that student interaction is a myth and it pretty much never happens - I've zoned out in classes with attendance scores too. Except for those handfuls of classes that many people can remember where it does happen, those don't count and there's surely nothing special about them that is worth learning from)
This is massively true IMO. Taking detailed notes during a lecture is an absurd waste of attention - we have universally-available recording technologies. Use them.
They're used professionally too, and there's essentially zero chance that they'll go away, it's much more realistic to use them in classes. This is something that has changed with phones and computers becoming universal - college needs to adapt to it.
Use lecture time to do things you can't do with a recording: interact.
(Yes I'm thoroughly aware that student interaction is a myth and it pretty much never happens - I've zoned out in classes with attendance scores too. Except for those handfuls of classes that many people can remember where it does happen, those don't count and there's surely nothing special about them that is worth learning from)
Taking notes forces your brain to process the information in a way that just reading or listening doesn’t.
That isn't a justification; if the students think that it helps they can take notes of their own initiative; handing out a copy of the slides doesn't disadvantage anyone. The lecturers are just making a petty power play because they want to feel important standing in front of a bunch of eager young students
There simply isn't any pedagogical justification for withholding information post-lecture that was deemed important enough to be included in a lecture. Everyone knows this material is critical to understanding the course. If professors want simple optimisations to help students learn then they would be doing something like organising lecture material to promote spaced repetition.
There simply isn't any pedagogical justification for withholding information post-lecture that was deemed important enough to be included in a lecture. Everyone knows this material is critical to understanding the course. If professors want simple optimisations to help students learn then they would be doing something like organising lecture material to promote spaced repetition.
Does it? I once had a course where for some reason administration cut the course hours in half, without cutting the program.
Teacher apologized in advance and asked us to take notes and read them at home later. After every lecture, I kid you not, I was lucky if I could remember the topic that was read to us. Absolutely no facts. It was lectures on topics I was slightly familiar with. And the speed of the lecture wasn't even as high (sic!) as the speed of some youtube lectures I have watched later.
You need to have time to process, but when you have to take notes there is a speed at which you just skip processing and instead all of your focus is in transcribing as efficiently as you can. I imagine, the speed differs from person to person. For the most of this course, the teacher hit this speed. And she knew she would hit it. So it seems universal.
If current student generation is worse at taking notes by hand, it could be a real disadvantage for them
You need to have time to process, but when you have to take notes there is a speed at which you just skip processing and instead all of your focus is in transcribing as efficiently as you can. I imagine, the speed differs from person to person. For the most of this course, the teacher hit this speed. And she knew she would hit it. So it seems universal.
If current student generation is worse at taking notes by hand, it could be a real disadvantage for them
You only have one language processing centre. You are either copying from the screen or listening to the professor, not both.
This is definitely how my brain works. I'm either absorbing words that are said, or I'm writing - when I multitask here, my retention plummets like a rock.
Shocker, that. Multitasking worsening performance? Surely that can't be a super-well-demonstrated-repeatedly phenomenon.
Shocker, that. Multitasking worsening performance? Surely that can't be a super-well-demonstrated-repeatedly phenomenon.
It also means instead of listening youre busy writing down stuff in time before the next slide
except you don't have time to do that in the moment, since you're busy scribbling down formulas trying to keep up
Probably an obvious addendum here, but the classes I remember having the most engaging lectures were flipped style where you didn't need to take notes necessarily, because the class was about discussing and deepening the understanding of material you saw already. That was true for my physics classes as well as philosophy. I think it was doubled up in usefulness when we were assigned material that asked us to act on our deepened understanding soon, e.g. before the next class period, such as one of the many "opinion pieces" we wrote for things like dualism/monism, etc.
Technical subjects achieve this with labs, too. It doesn't scale but we see clearly that scaling isn't always very desirable, especially if it leads to this regression.
Technical subjects achieve this with labs, too. It doesn't scale but we see clearly that scaling isn't always very desirable, especially if it leads to this regression.
I learned better when I took notes. I believe research backs that up.
Having a copy of slides open during lecture is a total game-changer for technical classes.
You can follow along and keep 2-3 slides open at a time to have a better sense of the context, skip back to review an idea, screenshot and get clarification with AI, there are so many possibilities which enhance the lecture.
Some professors also write/diagram right on top of the slides and then provide them after class.
A lot of CS classes have switched to GitHub, with basically entirely open course materials.
Even on closed systems like Canvas, it's typically an entire library of content that you have access to.
I personally love lectures, but I'm also not doing a typical degree program, where I'd be forced to take 3-5 courses per semester. If I was under that much workload, I can't imagine having the time to absorb all the material, do all the work, sleep, and go to every lecture.
You can follow along and keep 2-3 slides open at a time to have a better sense of the context, skip back to review an idea, screenshot and get clarification with AI, there are so many possibilities which enhance the lecture.
Some professors also write/diagram right on top of the slides and then provide them after class.
A lot of CS classes have switched to GitHub, with basically entirely open course materials.
Even on closed systems like Canvas, it's typically an entire library of content that you have access to.
I personally love lectures, but I'm also not doing a typical degree program, where I'd be forced to take 3-5 courses per semester. If I was under that much workload, I can't imagine having the time to absorb all the material, do all the work, sleep, and go to every lecture.
A professor's lecture notes would never be good notes for a student to learn from. They are simply reminders to the professor to talk about certain topics that they know the ins and outs of.
Half the time my lecture notes consist of a couple of problems to use as examples and nothing else.
Half the time my lecture notes consist of a couple of problems to use as examples and nothing else.
Agreed that the notes are usually not so great for learning from. But in this case the “notes” are actually the slides, which are explicitly intended to be consumed by the students.
Even so, a set if slides is a great reminder of whatever the professor talked about.
This is conflating written jots with information presented to the students.
The author is talking about PowerPoint slides that were presented to the students as valuable information.
The author is talking about PowerPoint slides that were presented to the students as valuable information.
I’d post that straight lecture is a crap way to teach/learn. And the large auditorium classes that are common at most state Us are fundamentally broken. Interactive discussion is probably much better for most students.
Pretty much everyone but the actual students agree that would be better. We can't do that since the students typically refuse to do the necessary prep.
I'm reminded of Amazon's meeting rule where the first 15 minutes are devoted to reading any documents because it's assumed no one did it ahead of the meeting. This is a problem in the workplace as well.
That's not entirely true at Amazon. It's expected for many of the more involved people in the meeting to read ahead of time, and at least be familiar with the subject.
At the same time, the time is given because not everyone will have time to read ahead of time. That 15 minutes at the start is their calendar block; think of managers who have back to back meetings all day.
It's not some referendum on people being careless.
At the same time, the time is given because not everyone will have time to read ahead of time. That 15 minutes at the start is their calendar block; think of managers who have back to back meetings all day.
It's not some referendum on people being careless.
The one course where I showed up to every class was a discussion class. It was on AI and each lecture was a 10 minute topic intro, 30 min of group discussion and research, and 10 min of presentations.
The courses I never attended a single class for were reading screenshots of a textbook.
The courses I never attended a single class for were reading screenshots of a textbook.
Idk my fellow student didn’t have any more insight than I did. Without work experience it’s all theoretical
Theory is kind of the point thought. College isn’t/shouldn’t be just a job training program. That’s part of the problem.
Without experience you can’t ground theory into reality and you miss the critical details that actually make things work. For me interesting stuff happens in the implementation later between theory and dirty reality.
Study groups were my replacement for this, but that requires a critical mass to get going.
> Having to take notes because they are not provided, rather than getting value from a lecture due to interactive participation sounds like a waste of time. This sounds exactly like the type of lecture I would have skipped.
Erm, a philosophy "lecture" is generally more like a discussion session. The value isn't in the "lecture notes"; the value is in the discussion going around the room.
The goal is to personally develop an informed opinion on nebulous concepts.
In the best ones, your opinion is in opposition, and you have to argue that yours is correct. And you have to examine your axioms to see which ones you disagree on. You read authors like Socrates and Aristotle not to be memorized as authoritative, but to understand where their arguments were strong and, more importantly, where they were faulty.
The primary value is in exercising your mind. You can't do that for "discussion" classes unless you attend the lectures.
Although, every student having 4+ missed classes (he said 2 weeks not 2 lectures) for a discussion-based subject really is kind of unreasonable.
Side note: Being an engineer in a class with philosophy majors was fascinating--the sheer amount of misunderstanding about basic science (let alone quantum mechanics) was staggering. It also opens your eyes about what you can and cannot take for granted.
Erm, a philosophy "lecture" is generally more like a discussion session. The value isn't in the "lecture notes"; the value is in the discussion going around the room.
The goal is to personally develop an informed opinion on nebulous concepts.
In the best ones, your opinion is in opposition, and you have to argue that yours is correct. And you have to examine your axioms to see which ones you disagree on. You read authors like Socrates and Aristotle not to be memorized as authoritative, but to understand where their arguments were strong and, more importantly, where they were faulty.
The primary value is in exercising your mind. You can't do that for "discussion" classes unless you attend the lectures.
Although, every student having 4+ missed classes (he said 2 weeks not 2 lectures) for a discussion-based subject really is kind of unreasonable.
Side note: Being an engineer in a class with philosophy majors was fascinating--the sheer amount of misunderstanding about basic science (let alone quantum mechanics) was staggering. It also opens your eyes about what you can and cannot take for granted.
I vaguely remember the philosophy classes I took oncr upon a time as all being lectures and then extensive papers for homework, with real discussion only happening in the 400-level ones around when I finally stopped taking them because the endless paper-writing rhetoric in circles was just terminally boring by that point.
That sounds like an abysmal philosophy education. Sorry you got that. The main purpose of a philosophy class is to read some material, engage with it critically in a guided dialogue in class time, and engage critically by yourself with it in written work. Straight lectures are basically going to wind up just being cliff's notes for a written source and are about as useful as any secondary source. The exception would be survey courses and intro ones, where the professor's choice of how to guide students through material can make an overwhelming task of exposing yourself to a lot of different thought into something manageable.
I loved it when lecturers made the PowerPoint slides available before the lecture, as it meant I could read the slides ahead of time and thus keep up in the lecture. It made it easier to take meaningful notes.
I'm somewhat convinced that the average person can't sit and listen to someone talk for more than 20 minutes straight without their mind wandering. If a lecture is non interactive, then just make it available in written form and use that lecture time for seminars instead.
I'm somewhat convinced that the average person can't sit and listen to someone talk for more than 20 minutes straight without their mind wandering. If a lecture is non interactive, then just make it available in written form and use that lecture time for seminars instead.
It is not interactive because the professor has demonstrated mastery of the subject matter and thoughts, ideas and suggestions of the students are an order of magnitude less of less value than that of the professors.
Some subjects are conducive to the Socratic method but hard sciences and mathematics for instance are not. Ultimately you are trying to speedrun 500 years or so of discovery and research and while motivating problems often help, sometimes you just need to read the book, listen to the lectures and put in some effort.
Some subjects are conducive to the Socratic method but hard sciences and mathematics for instance are not. Ultimately you are trying to speedrun 500 years or so of discovery and research and while motivating problems often help, sometimes you just need to read the book, listen to the lectures and put in some effort.
It's much easier to learn if you can ask questions and try (and fail) to make your own connections, and this has nothing to do with whether or not your own ideas and suggestions have any merit of their own.
I don't engage in class to show off or try to contribute, but because it's an incredibly valuable part of the learning process for me.
I don't engage in class to show off or try to contribute, but because it's an incredibly valuable part of the learning process for me.
Questions are fine, unless they end up being a substitute for not preparing for class.
As a professor I had once put it, "This is difficult material. I don't expect you to understand it from just one lecture. You need to read the material before the lecture, but it will only be after you've struggled with the problem sets that I would expect you to understand it."
As a professor I had once put it, "This is difficult material. I don't expect you to understand it from just one lecture. You need to read the material before the lecture, but it will only be after you've struggled with the problem sets that I would expect you to understand it."
A class that is not interactive then doesn't have to be a class. It could be a book or a set of slides with an audio narration and that'd have the same result.
Teachers that can only read their notes and write stuff on a board without ever interacting are of the most useless kind. They're completely replaceable by course material.
Teachers that can only read their notes and write stuff on a board without ever interacting are of the most useless kind. They're completely replaceable by course material.
Agreed, when I was at uni a few years ago, having the lecture slides was a handy reference EVEN when I wrote my own notes during lectures.
One thing it helps with is for professors with their own special take on a subject where you have to use the exact right obscure method that only exists in their 20 year old slides and nowhere else. Or if the textbook is garbage or doesn't exist. When your course context is not the latest and greatest information, having the slides is handy for passing.
One thing it helps with is for professors with their own special take on a subject where you have to use the exact right obscure method that only exists in their 20 year old slides and nowhere else. Or if the textbook is garbage or doesn't exist. When your course context is not the latest and greatest information, having the slides is handy for passing.
Yeah I don't get that statement at all. How can a professor not just post their slides on their website? What exactly is so special about their slides?
I come from physics, but basically at the undergraduate level above introductory courses most of the professors simply wanted to talk about physics with students. They didn't even want to lecture they wanted to have a conversation. I think this is what is missing here. Building personal relationships with students based on the interest in the material. The author fails at this because they won't even share power point slides and think they are an arbiter of knowledge that the student must write down as notes.
in fact, this is why I currently want to find opportunities for teaching in addition to my current role as a research scientist. I miss discussing fundamental topics with people who are building an understanding and not already experts on some topic.
I come from physics, but basically at the undergraduate level above introductory courses most of the professors simply wanted to talk about physics with students. They didn't even want to lecture they wanted to have a conversation. I think this is what is missing here. Building personal relationships with students based on the interest in the material. The author fails at this because they won't even share power point slides and think they are an arbiter of knowledge that the student must write down as notes.
in fact, this is why I currently want to find opportunities for teaching in addition to my current role as a research scientist. I miss discussing fundamental topics with people who are building an understanding and not already experts on some topic.
The physical act of having to take notes helped me understand and remember them. Being given a handout doesn't work that well.
Nobody is stopping anyone from taking notes during class. Even you should appreciate the slides because they’d give you an opportunity to review before big exams and make sure you didn’t miss anything.
> This sounds exactly like the type of lecture I would have skipped.
I understand that one could jump to such a conclusion; and I’ve attended more than my fair share of talks where the speaker over little more than I could glean from looking over the printouts for a few minutes.
But here, can we truly come to the conclusion that the slides are being read verbatim, or whether they are placeholders for a richer discussion that comes out verbally in class? We obviously cannot know, but I can’t say that I’d pre-commit to skipping before knowing more.
I understand that one could jump to such a conclusion; and I’ve attended more than my fair share of talks where the speaker over little more than I could glean from looking over the printouts for a few minutes.
But here, can we truly come to the conclusion that the slides are being read verbatim, or whether they are placeholders for a richer discussion that comes out verbally in class? We obviously cannot know, but I can’t say that I’d pre-commit to skipping before knowing more.
> Having to take notes because they are not provided, rather than getting value from a lecture due to interactive participation sounds like a waste of time.
Also, the taking of notes is a distraction in a class. You can't pause the teacher while writing or rewind, so whatever the teacher explains while you're writing is just missed. This isn't true for everyone, but many people can't blindly type while paying attention to something else.
I prefer to just listen and interact with the teacher over writing down what they say (and is already written on their slides).
Also, the taking of notes is a distraction in a class. You can't pause the teacher while writing or rewind, so whatever the teacher explains while you're writing is just missed. This isn't true for everyone, but many people can't blindly type while paying attention to something else.
I prefer to just listen and interact with the teacher over writing down what they say (and is already written on their slides).
100% agreed. When I was in Uni, I had a few lectures where going to the class was actually a waste of time for me (especially when I had to work on other time-consuming assignments) since I knew about the topic already. I passed those classes with high grades solely by going over the lecture slides.
Ha yep, I bumped on that too. Like, what? Post the slides for future reference, who cares? What an odd bugaboo.
One thing that's changed in the past decade is that college professors are now competing against youtube. There are really bad lecturers in college (and also really good ones!). But now, when you encounter a bad one, that's okay--you can watch lectures online.
Not just YouTube. MIT has an open course system that is available to anyone, for free, from actually employed MIT professors, lecturing real courses [1]. I went to a state university that basically copied Pearson slides and books into a course with minimal adjustments.
Rather than sitting through a 50 minute lecture, I found a similar lecture on the same topic (c debugging, I think it was), and pointed out that the MIT instructor covered the same topic, in more depth, in real-time, with a live demo, in overall less time than it took the State University professor to explain. It was concise, wasted no time, and gave me clear information on what I needed to know with minimal extra examples.
And my course instructor hated me pointing that out.
[1]: https://ocw.mit.edu/
Rather than sitting through a 50 minute lecture, I found a similar lecture on the same topic (c debugging, I think it was), and pointed out that the MIT instructor covered the same topic, in more depth, in real-time, with a live demo, in overall less time than it took the State University professor to explain. It was concise, wasted no time, and gave me clear information on what I needed to know with minimal extra examples.
And my course instructor hated me pointing that out.
[1]: https://ocw.mit.edu/
I think that's the biggest disruption of all, and goes well under the radar. Universities were originally guilds of students who hired masters of fields to profess their knowledge.
Now anyone with a computer connected to the internet can have access to the best lectures in the world. People talk a lot about employment, diploma mill mentality, student and professor ethics in this thread.
But I think the silent revolution, one that has nothing to do with AI, is that nowadays anyone can learn and acquire basically any knowledge based skills they might want. I have always lived by the maxim "don't let school get in the way of your education". And I also think that education is a life long journey. Fretting about the state of complex systems is an exercise in futility. Educating oneself has never been easier and I love it!
Now anyone with a computer connected to the internet can have access to the best lectures in the world. People talk a lot about employment, diploma mill mentality, student and professor ethics in this thread.
But I think the silent revolution, one that has nothing to do with AI, is that nowadays anyone can learn and acquire basically any knowledge based skills they might want. I have always lived by the maxim "don't let school get in the way of your education". And I also think that education is a life long journey. Fretting about the state of complex systems is an exercise in futility. Educating oneself has never been easier and I love it!
> And my course instructor hated me pointing that out.
That is shameful. Instead of doing that, they should have given that out upfront and then spend the class discussing it and helping those who still had doubts/questions.
That is shameful. Instead of doing that, they should have given that out upfront and then spend the class discussing it and helping those who still had doubts/questions.
[deleted]
Not to mention that there are now also LLM’s to help you understand difficult topics!
I'm sure the average college student will know when the helpful LLM is hallucinating, misrepresenting or stating outdated material as factually accurate today, right?
Don't worry, professors do it too.
I had one such professor in accounting. Typos, numbers from wrong year, copy/paste mistakes, forgot to turn on precision as displayed, mismatching account numbers, etc.
The textbook (written by someone else) also had mistakes. At least not in every exercise, but enough to be annoying.
Exams were also graded based on an incorrect solution, so you always had to fight for a revised grade.
I had one such professor in accounting. Typos, numbers from wrong year, copy/paste mistakes, forgot to turn on precision as displayed, mismatching account numbers, etc.
The textbook (written by someone else) also had mistakes. At least not in every exercise, but enough to be annoying.
Exams were also graded based on an incorrect solution, so you always had to fight for a revised grade.
Probably the worst thing you could ask to help you understand a topic you yourself don't understand and are encountering for the first time.
I'm guessing you and your brother are both well above average, in which case I'd agree that you could get more out of studying on your own (if the material was even challenging to begin with).
The students referred to in the article don't have the wherewithal to study effectively on their own; the lectures are their only hope for learning, assuming they were to take advantage of them. Also, many classes are not simply lectures, but an opportunity to ask questions of the teacher. By not coming to class, one robs themselves of that opportunity.
The students referred to in the article don't have the wherewithal to study effectively on their own; the lectures are their only hope for learning, assuming they were to take advantage of them. Also, many classes are not simply lectures, but an opportunity to ask questions of the teacher. By not coming to class, one robs themselves of that opportunity.
In my experience it’s one or the other: attend all the lecturers and nullify the need to study more than that attendance and some specific exam revision if they drop hints or don’t attend but do the readings. I think a lot of being a successful student is cutting through all the duplicative work that gets thrown your way.
> I think a lot of being a successful student is cutting through all the duplicative work that gets thrown your way.
And being honest with yourself about which duplicative work you actually don’t benefit from (vs. which work is “boring” or interferes with sleep/whatever other excuses).
And being honest with yourself about which duplicative work you actually don’t benefit from (vs. which work is “boring” or interferes with sleep/whatever other excuses).
> I understand that some professors view this as disrepsectful, but when your lectures consist of simply reading off the lecture notes that you're going to upload online anyway, lectures become a waste of time that could be better spent with more studying on our own.
Jeez I wish they would have uploaded all the material online, not everyone does that (perhaps thinking if they do it lots of people won't show up). And even if they do it , it is often sparse slides with half the material passed in person - so very missing. It's enough to not understand the first 10 minutes of the lecture and then you're completely lost for another frustrating 35 minutes ( or more, some lectures are double). It's enough not to fully remember the last lecture and you don't follow what the professor is talking about now. It's not a fun experience and happened to me a lot - the material is hard, my intelligence is good but nothing stellar so it's super easy to become lost.
The truth is it's probably better for the average person to study at their own pace with an LLM or something like that, I had a real rough time following computer science lectures. I can ask the LLM to stop, to re explain, to re explain in a different way etc etc. If I'm tired I can stretch a bit. I think its the really bright kids or those with superior concentration and preparation skills that got something out of those lectures, the rest of us hated it.
Jeez I wish they would have uploaded all the material online, not everyone does that (perhaps thinking if they do it lots of people won't show up). And even if they do it , it is often sparse slides with half the material passed in person - so very missing. It's enough to not understand the first 10 minutes of the lecture and then you're completely lost for another frustrating 35 minutes ( or more, some lectures are double). It's enough not to fully remember the last lecture and you don't follow what the professor is talking about now. It's not a fun experience and happened to me a lot - the material is hard, my intelligence is good but nothing stellar so it's super easy to become lost.
The truth is it's probably better for the average person to study at their own pace with an LLM or something like that, I had a real rough time following computer science lectures. I can ask the LLM to stop, to re explain, to re explain in a different way etc etc. If I'm tired I can stretch a bit. I think its the really bright kids or those with superior concentration and preparation skills that got something out of those lectures, the rest of us hated it.
I had a linear algebra teacher who would not speak to us. Literally conducted most classes in complete silence. His English wasn't great but manageable - that wasn't the issue. He would just walk into class without acknowledging us and proceed to solve out the previous homework problems. Then he'd introduce a few other problems (written on the whiteboard, nothing verbal) and keep writing. This was presumably similar to our next assignment, which he handed out at the end of class before leaving. Often zero words spoken for the 50 minute class. All of the solutions were available without going to class. So I didn't.
If the university isn't going to invest anything in lecturing, why should I attend the lectures?
If the university isn't going to invest anything in lecturing, why should I attend the lectures?
I empathize with this. I went to one of those “top tier” universities and had a handful of classes where I regretted being one of the few (fewer than 10) goody good students who attended lecture, and subsequently fell asleep anyway. Over time, I realized that universities like these primarily prioritize faculty who can attract grant dollars over those who are excellent teachers.
But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.
But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.
>But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.
From experience on the professor's side, the problem isn't the brilliant students who show up to one class and ace the exam like everyone in here seems to have been. The problem is the students who miss most lectures and get 50% or lower because they (and, increasingly, most students these days) don't actually understand how to study from a textbook.
From experience on the professor's side, the problem isn't the brilliant students who show up to one class and ace the exam like everyone in here seems to have been. The problem is the students who miss most lectures and get 50% or lower because they (and, increasingly, most students these days) don't actually understand how to study from a textbook.
Long ago CUNY had a low admission bar and a high graduation bar. This meant, of course, that many students dropped out. In your case, students choose to pay tuition and not do the work. What is the external pressure on you or the dean or university to make things easier for these people? I think there should be a reverse feeder school idea: enroll in a university where standards are high, if you do poorly then transfer to a community college. That way a degree from that university is a signal for quality.
>What is the external pressure on you or the dean or university to make things easier for these people?
Mostly that students are all giant piggybanks that spit out tuition every year. And, from experience, a lot of administrators view themselves as doing a service for marginalized students (who are often more likely to come in ill prepared and wash out like this). They are generally old and paternalistic (and sometimes a bit racist) and often just assume that all such students need lowered standards rather than what they actually need (a kick in the pants and plenty of resources to help them get their shit together).
Mostly that students are all giant piggybanks that spit out tuition every year. And, from experience, a lot of administrators view themselves as doing a service for marginalized students (who are often more likely to come in ill prepared and wash out like this). They are generally old and paternalistic (and sometimes a bit racist) and often just assume that all such students need lowered standards rather than what they actually need (a kick in the pants and plenty of resources to help them get their shit together).
I had a lecturerer who recorded every lecture and posted it to a player you could control the speed of.
So I could listen to lecture at 1.5x speed and skip any parts I thought were filler. Of course I didn't show up to class...
So I could listen to lecture at 1.5x speed and skip any parts I thought were filler. Of course I didn't show up to class...
Agreed. In college I would always go to the first class, see if the lecture was useful and probably 80% of the time I wouldn’t go again.
Although I do sympathize with many of the author’s broader points.
Although I do sympathize with many of the author’s broader points.
> when your lectures consist of simply reading off the lecture notes that you're going to upload online anyway, lectures become a waste of time that could be better spent with more studying on our own.
Unfortunately, some colleges doesn't value efficiency nearly as much as they do their self respect. Because of which we now have strict attendance requirements (75%) for every course.
Unfortunately, some colleges doesn't value efficiency nearly as much as they do their self respect. Because of which we now have strict attendance requirements (75%) for every course.
Fully agree as a "top student" from probably a school similar to where author is a professor.
I would add that reading this piece and the attitude the author has towards students, I doubt I would want to attend their class (or possibly even take it in the first place, professors have reputations).
I would add that reading this piece and the attitude the author has towards students, I doubt I would want to attend their class (or possibly even take it in the first place, professors have reputations).
I'm confused. At the universities I attended, or later worked at, lectures were absolutely, definitely, optional. That's how it should be. Universities provide a framework for students to learn. The university then tests what the student has learned in order to give them a diploma. How the student learned that is surely not important.
(Things are of course different when there are practical considerations to the teaching, such as labwork, which of comes with a degree of associated testing anyway.)
(Things are of course different when there are practical considerations to the teaching, such as labwork, which of comes with a degree of associated testing anyway.)
Yeah a lot of what this essay called out seems bad to me, but I always felt like professors thought their lectures were more important to the learning process than they were. Most of my courses had more workshop like class periods where grad students and/or upperclassmen would be there to answer questions, and those were universally more valuable uses of time than the lectures. Office hours with the professors, and of course textbooks, were also great. But lectures? Pretty skippable, honestly!
[deleted]
I regret this showing of disrespect, but I'm a little proud of the fact that I got an A in inorganic chemistry by reading the book when I felt like reading it and otherwise doing homework on my laptop all semester during lectures.
You're top students and don't understand that a sample of two is a poor way to reason about social and human problems at scale? Across large population of individuals with different traits?
Totally disagree. Lecture is an opportunity to directly ask your professor to clarify the material or perhaps extend to an adjacent area. It is also an opportunity to learn from your classmates who may pose insightful questions or comments.
TFA omits this trend (seemingly since wide spread availability of the internet) to being solitary - the view that nothing of value can come from interactions with peers or superiors other than wasted time. [this is different from missing classes because of laziness which is implied].
TFA omits this trend (seemingly since wide spread availability of the internet) to being solitary - the view that nothing of value can come from interactions with peers or superiors other than wasted time. [this is different from missing classes because of laziness which is implied].
> Lecture is an opportunity to directly ask your professor to clarify the material or perhaps extend to an adjacent area.
You raise a good point, but in this situation I would usually either: 1) go to office hours or 2) ask my question to other capable students.
You raise a good point, but in this situation I would usually either: 1) go to office hours or 2) ask my question to other capable students.
How do you really know you're top students? Maybe you just got a pass.
My median grade was an A+ and my brother got the silver medal for second highest GPA in the faculty.
Congrats but was that on a curve? Do you think your A+ today would have been an A+ 20, 30, 50 years ago? Considering that you've just stated that your MEDIAN grade was an A+, I suspect not.
I meant "pass" as in the sense of "Olé, here's an A+, so off with you to the rest of your life".
But, seriously, how's that lack of engagement working out in "the rest of your life"? Meetings? Why bother? Seems like a lecture. Reply to Slack or Email? Does that sound like something you ought to do? Or a judgement call, based on your intuition of their value?
But, seriously, how's that lack of engagement working out in "the rest of your life"? Meetings? Why bother? Seems like a lecture. Reply to Slack or Email? Does that sound like something you ought to do? Or a judgement call, based on your intuition of their value?
There is a lot of talk about how LLMs will disrupt software development and office work and whatnot, but there is one thing that they are massively disrupting right now, and that is education. I've witnessed this with a group of CS master students recently, and they have let their programming skills atrophy to barely imaginable levels. LLMs have the twin effect of raising the bar for what even a barely viable junior developer has to live up to, while simultaneously lowering their actual skills. There is a generation of completely unemployable "graduates" in the pipeline.
The article mentions that most students are only in it for the diploma anyway, but somehow most people are yet to realize that those diplomas will soon be toilet paper, precisely because they no longer require any actual effort to obtain.
The article mentions that most students are only in it for the diploma anyway, but somehow most people are yet to realize that those diplomas will soon be toilet paper, precisely because they no longer require any actual effort to obtain.
I am currently a CS student in germany and our python lecturer told us at the first lesson that "we didn't really need to learn python" because AI was going to take over anyways and we will not be writing any code after we graduate. He then encouraged us to use AI on all assignments he gives us. He even allows us to cheat at the final exam by using LLMs.
I was about to have a word with him after the lecture but when he started talking about how crypto is going to replace fiat any second now I knew he was a lost cause.
I asked around with my fellow students what they thought about them and not one minded that they were essentially enrolled in a "how to proompt" class. When I asked one student that it was all nice and well that you pass the module but isn't the ideal outcome that you actually know the language by the end? He laughed and said "Yeah sure, do you think the same about maths"?
I was about to have a word with him after the lecture but when he started talking about how crypto is going to replace fiat any second now I knew he was a lost cause.
I asked around with my fellow students what they thought about them and not one minded that they were essentially enrolled in a "how to proompt" class. When I asked one student that it was all nice and well that you pass the module but isn't the ideal outcome that you actually know the language by the end? He laughed and said "Yeah sure, do you think the same about maths"?
Please raise this with the university, be it 'Fachschaft' or the ombudsman for academic integrity. This is not representative for CS education here as far as I know. Other teachers or faculty want to know.
Besides that, these are ridiculous claims from the teacher. LLMs are powerful but in the end they are still a tool with random output, which needs to be carefully evaluated. Especially Python is my personal view much more subtle than people assume on first contact. Especially the whole numpy universe is like a separate language and quite complicated for a beginner if you want to write fast and efficient code.
I've had courses where LLMs where allowed for projects but we had to provide prompts.
Besides that, these are ridiculous claims from the teacher. LLMs are powerful but in the end they are still a tool with random output, which needs to be carefully evaluated. Especially Python is my personal view much more subtle than people assume on first contact. Especially the whole numpy universe is like a separate language and quite complicated for a beginner if you want to write fast and efficient code.
I've had courses where LLMs where allowed for projects but we had to provide prompts.
> I am currently a CS student in germany and our python lecturer told us at the first lesson that "we didn't really need to learn python" because AI was going to take over anyways and we will not be writing any code after we graduate. He then encouraged us to use AI on all assignments he gives us. He even allows us to cheat at the final exam by using LLMs.
> I was about to have a word with him after the lecture but when he started talking about how crypto is going to replace fiat any second now I knew he was a lost cause.
Knowing the education system in Germany rather well, I ask myself in which (kind of) educational establishment this happened, since I'd consider this to be rather unusual for at least universities (Universitäten) and Fachhochschulen (some other system of tertiary education that has no analogue in most countries).
> I was about to have a word with him after the lecture but when he started talking about how crypto is going to replace fiat any second now I knew he was a lost cause.
Knowing the education system in Germany rather well, I ask myself in which (kind of) educational establishment this happened, since I'd consider this to be rather unusual for at least universities (Universitäten) and Fachhochschulen (some other system of tertiary education that has no analogue in most countries).
It's a Fachhochschule. And yeah that lecture was very unusual it felt like the insane rablings of a techno evangelist who jumped on every hype train in the last 20 years. He said the most important technologies are IoT, Blockchain and AI
This sounds like the Fachhochschule hired some guest lecturer from the world of employment (since it is a goal of Fachhochschulen to also give the students a perspective from work environment in their lectures, this sometimes happens).
Unluckily the people responsible to hire a guest lecturer fell for a windbag. :-(
Unluckily the people responsible to hire a guest lecturer fell for a windbag. :-(
You do not have to put up with this. Your lecturer is significantly undermining your education (which you pay for!).
You should bring this up with the department chair of your study. The purpose of your CS degree is to build a strong theoretical foundation, replacing programming with prompting directly goes against this.
You should bring this up with the department chair of your study. The purpose of your CS degree is to build a strong theoretical foundation, replacing programming with prompting directly goes against this.
> Your lecturer is significantly undermining your education (which you pay for!).
In Germany, at state universities, you typically only pay money for the student self-administration. The huge "payment" is rather the opportunity cost.
> The purpose of your CS degree is to build a strong theoretical foundation
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533033 Loeffelmann wrote that this happened at a Fachhochschule, not at a university. The purpose of universities is to give the student a strong theoretical foundation to prepare them for doing research. The purpose of Fachhochschulen is to prepare the student for working in jobs outside of academia.
In Germany, at state universities, you typically only pay money for the student self-administration. The huge "payment" is rather the opportunity cost.
> The purpose of your CS degree is to build a strong theoretical foundation
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533033 Loeffelmann wrote that this happened at a Fachhochschule, not at a university. The purpose of universities is to give the student a strong theoretical foundation to prepare them for doing research. The purpose of Fachhochschulen is to prepare the student for working in jobs outside of academia.
If the studen isn't paying out of pocket themselves, the tax payer is. Demand better. I am strongly on the side of a well funded government, education should at the very least be subsidized, and all that, but it's people like this that can be used to justify Doge and other insane """efficiency programmes""".
You say that like this isn’t exactly what Doge would want to accomplish. They’d likely do away with educators at all and just let llms do it.
I agree with your base point though. “Demand better” should be the new war cry
I agree with your base point though. “Demand better” should be the new war cry
Don't believe them. I was also going to university in Germany and had to work so much to compensate for bad lecturers. Until now I can say I needed 100% of what I learned in university. Even the most esoteric stuff came back to bite me. For LLMs, they are close to useless if you can't review the stuff. Maybe at some point in the future they are better and can reason about their code, but as in fusion, self-driving, etc., you never know when this is. And there will always be people who have to develop this.
> but isn't the ideal outcome that you actually know the language by the end?
Given that it is billed as a Python course that is reasonable.
But, to be fair, the intent of the course is almost certainly to provide background in the tools so that you can observe CS concepts learned later. Which is kind of like astronomy majors learning how to use a telescope so that they can observe its concepts. If Google image search provided the same imagery just as well as a telescope, the frustration in being compelled to teach rudimentary telescope operation is understandable. It is not like the sciences are studied for the tools.
Given that it is billed as a Python course that is reasonable.
But, to be fair, the intent of the course is almost certainly to provide background in the tools so that you can observe CS concepts learned later. Which is kind of like astronomy majors learning how to use a telescope so that they can observe its concepts. If Google image search provided the same imagery just as well as a telescope, the frustration in being compelled to teach rudimentary telescope operation is understandable. It is not like the sciences are studied for the tools.
> It is not like the sciences are studied for the tools
The problem with this logic is that most university students don't go there to do science, they go there to, at best, become working experts in their field. Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree, which is simply absurd. Secondary vocational education is generally considered insufficient and tertiary vocational schools are "where you go if you can't get into university". This means universities get a huge number of applicants who want nothing to do with science or advanced theory, but just want to learn enough (and get the right paper!) to get a job in their preferred field.
This is now self-reinforcing. If you're a good programmer and want to work on business software, it would make sense for you to go to a tertiary vocational school (where I'm from that means 2 years, one semester of which is essentially an apprenticeship). But because "everyone goes to university", you'll be seen as a worse candidate for most jobs. At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless". So universities lower the bar, taking more away from vocational, who then lower the bar in turn to stay afloat, devaluing themselves in the process.
The problem with this logic is that most university students don't go there to do science, they go there to, at best, become working experts in their field. Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree, which is simply absurd. Secondary vocational education is generally considered insufficient and tertiary vocational schools are "where you go if you can't get into university". This means universities get a huge number of applicants who want nothing to do with science or advanced theory, but just want to learn enough (and get the right paper!) to get a job in their preferred field.
This is now self-reinforcing. If you're a good programmer and want to work on business software, it would make sense for you to go to a tertiary vocational school (where I'm from that means 2 years, one semester of which is essentially an apprenticeship). But because "everyone goes to university", you'll be seen as a worse candidate for most jobs. At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless". So universities lower the bar, taking more away from vocational, who then lower the bar in turn to stay afloat, devaluing themselves in the process.
>
The problem with this logic is that most university students don't go there to do science, they go there to, at best, become working experts in their field. Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree, which is simply absurd. Secondary vocational education is generally considered insufficient and tertiary vocational schools are "where you go if you can't get into university". This means universities get a huge number of applicants who want nothing to do with science or advanced theory, but just want to learn enough (and get the right paper!) to get a job in their preferred field.
This is why in Germany there exists a third form of tertiary education that is neither vocational nor universities: Fachhochschulen (often translated with "schools of applied science").
This is why in Germany there exists a third form of tertiary education that is neither vocational nor universities: Fachhochschulen (often translated with "schools of applied science").
You mean universities of applied science, not schools, they call themselves that in English, but even that has different meanings in other countries.
It's basically a more practical and school like university with smaller classes and more practical material.
[deleted]
> Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree
They don't actually – but when faced with long lines they will have to apply a filtering mechanism to get the numbers down to something manageable, and a degree is most legally accepted way to do it. Filtering by gender, race, etc. is off limits.
But if there are still too many in the queue even after applying that filter, employers will have to move on to something else, like credit score. So more and more getting a degree to evade the filter is a bit of a fool's errand. It might be okay if you are one of the few with one, but it isn't 1950 anymore. At this point one is late to the party.
A better marketing strategy is your best bet if you truly still want to work in a field that is oversaturated. Metaphorically, you don't have to bundle Android to capture market attention if you can stand out like the iPhone. Life will be a lot easier if you move on to a career that needs more people rather than getting caught up in the intense competition, though.
> At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless".
College has sold itself as the place to give people awareness of the world, which is what employers truly seek. Employers don't want robots to carry out rote tasks, they want people to be able to think through never-before-experienced situations and deliver the best outcome.
When someone shows up useless, college has failed them. Not because college didn't teach them how to use some specific tool, but in allowing them to graduate without being able recognize that one shouldn't show up to a job completely useless. Naturally, employers are going to be "WTF?"
The response to that shouldn't be to double down on teaching tools to hide the real failing and avoid putting in the work to actually deliver on what is promised, but as long as the students keep showing up I suppose there is no reason to care about doing better.
They don't actually – but when faced with long lines they will have to apply a filtering mechanism to get the numbers down to something manageable, and a degree is most legally accepted way to do it. Filtering by gender, race, etc. is off limits.
But if there are still too many in the queue even after applying that filter, employers will have to move on to something else, like credit score. So more and more getting a degree to evade the filter is a bit of a fool's errand. It might be okay if you are one of the few with one, but it isn't 1950 anymore. At this point one is late to the party.
A better marketing strategy is your best bet if you truly still want to work in a field that is oversaturated. Metaphorically, you don't have to bundle Android to capture market attention if you can stand out like the iPhone. Life will be a lot easier if you move on to a career that needs more people rather than getting caught up in the intense competition, though.
> At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless".
College has sold itself as the place to give people awareness of the world, which is what employers truly seek. Employers don't want robots to carry out rote tasks, they want people to be able to think through never-before-experienced situations and deliver the best outcome.
When someone shows up useless, college has failed them. Not because college didn't teach them how to use some specific tool, but in allowing them to graduate without being able recognize that one shouldn't show up to a job completely useless. Naturally, employers are going to be "WTF?"
The response to that shouldn't be to double down on teaching tools to hide the real failing and avoid putting in the work to actually deliver on what is promised, but as long as the students keep showing up I suppose there is no reason to care about doing better.
You're being cheated out of an education by your feckless lecturer.
> "we didn't really need to learn python" because AI was going to take over anyways
Wow! I think this is an extreme comment to make. I get it.. but WOW! It really makes you wonder about the future of universities. If the answer is to let AI do our work.. even to cheat in final exams... what is the point of universities? Not only are we talking about Software Engineers dying.. but so if his lecturer job!
Anyway..
I am developer for over 20 years.
I have kids -- both are not even teenagers... but there are times I think to myself "is it worth them learning XYZ" because of AI?
By the time my eldest get his first job.. we are talking (atleast) around year 2032. We have to accept that AI is going to do some pretty cool things. HOWEVER, I still "believe" that AI will work alongside software developers. We still need to communicate with it - to do that, you need to understand how to communicate with it.
Point is, if any of my kids express interest in computer programming in the next year or so, I will HAPPILY encourage them to invest time in it. What I have to accept is that they will use AI.. a lot.. to build something in their chosen language.
I can see this being a typical question for new coders:-
"Can you create a flappy bird game in python"
Sure.. AI might spit something out in a matter of minutes and it might even work, but are they really learning? I think I would encourage my kids to ban using AI for (around) 4 days a week.
At the end of the day it is very difficult to know our future. Sometimes I have to think about my future.. not just my kids. I mean, would my job as a software engineer be over? If so, when? What would I do?
Overall It doesn't not bother me because I do think my role will transition with AI but for the younger generation, it can be a grey area understanding where they fit in all this.
I try to be optimistic that the next 100 years will be a very exiciting time for the human race (if we do not destroy ourselves beforehand)
To counter your lecturer, I am reminded of a John Carmack quote: "Low-level programming is good for the programmer's soul"
Not even low-level -- any programming. If you really like to code, you are going to learn it whether in School, College, or University. To me, the best times I learned was outside of official education, shutting myself away in my bedroom. "Official education" is nothing more that doing what you are told for a peice of paper. What is its worth these days?
Whether AI exists or not - those that like coding will invest the time to code. This is what will seperate average to good programmers or developers. What seperates a good programmer to a great programmer will be their lack or AI generated code... to DIY!
Thats my view... but this is a large topic and I am only scratching the surface.
Wow! I think this is an extreme comment to make. I get it.. but WOW! It really makes you wonder about the future of universities. If the answer is to let AI do our work.. even to cheat in final exams... what is the point of universities? Not only are we talking about Software Engineers dying.. but so if his lecturer job!
Anyway..
I am developer for over 20 years.
I have kids -- both are not even teenagers... but there are times I think to myself "is it worth them learning XYZ" because of AI?
By the time my eldest get his first job.. we are talking (atleast) around year 2032. We have to accept that AI is going to do some pretty cool things. HOWEVER, I still "believe" that AI will work alongside software developers. We still need to communicate with it - to do that, you need to understand how to communicate with it.
Point is, if any of my kids express interest in computer programming in the next year or so, I will HAPPILY encourage them to invest time in it. What I have to accept is that they will use AI.. a lot.. to build something in their chosen language.
I can see this being a typical question for new coders:-
"Can you create a flappy bird game in python"
Sure.. AI might spit something out in a matter of minutes and it might even work, but are they really learning? I think I would encourage my kids to ban using AI for (around) 4 days a week.
At the end of the day it is very difficult to know our future. Sometimes I have to think about my future.. not just my kids. I mean, would my job as a software engineer be over? If so, when? What would I do?
Overall It doesn't not bother me because I do think my role will transition with AI but for the younger generation, it can be a grey area understanding where they fit in all this.
I try to be optimistic that the next 100 years will be a very exiciting time for the human race (if we do not destroy ourselves beforehand)
To counter your lecturer, I am reminded of a John Carmack quote: "Low-level programming is good for the programmer's soul"
Not even low-level -- any programming. If you really like to code, you are going to learn it whether in School, College, or University. To me, the best times I learned was outside of official education, shutting myself away in my bedroom. "Official education" is nothing more that doing what you are told for a peice of paper. What is its worth these days?
Whether AI exists or not - those that like coding will invest the time to code. This is what will seperate average to good programmers or developers. What seperates a good programmer to a great programmer will be their lack or AI generated code... to DIY!
Thats my view... but this is a large topic and I am only scratching the surface.
At the end of the day, the question is what do you do when things aren't working. Being resilient in the face of failure is the most important skill. If AI in 2032 never gets stuck anywhere ever, then that's a totally different world we'd living in. So assuming we don't, that's the underlying thing to pass on to your kids, regardless of the actual details. Just the other day I was vibe coding and the code had two fields for date and time instead of one timestamp field and it kept getting confused, but I had to go into the code and actually read it to figure out what went wrong. Low level programming is important for programmers because you have to dig deeper to find gold. The program isn't working like it's supposed to? look at the source. The library being called by that program isn't behaving like it's supposed to? look at the source. The binary doesn't match the source? stick it in a decompiler. At the end of the day, that's where the true value lies.
> If AI in 2032 never gets stuck anywhere ever, then that's a totally different world we'd living in.
Well, this. And at that point we'd likely be facing the same situation in just about every other information-intensive field as well. Yet it doesn't seem like anybody has any idea how to prepare students (or anybody else) for that kind of a future.
It seems absurd to give up on learning and understanding things ourselves because of a hypothetical future for which nobody has a better plan anyway.
Well, this. And at that point we'd likely be facing the same situation in just about every other information-intensive field as well. Yet it doesn't seem like anybody has any idea how to prepare students (or anybody else) for that kind of a future.
It seems absurd to give up on learning and understanding things ourselves because of a hypothetical future for which nobody has a better plan anyway.
Well, he has a point about Maths :) But, the difference is that basic Maths skills are enough to live a decent life for someone who doesn't do Maths for a career. Basic programming usually isn't enough to pass job interviews and one needs to know the language for a career, atleast for now. I'm actually learning a lot of basic Maths concepts now that I have a kid I need to teach sometimes and have some money I need to invest and understand about rate of return, compounding etc.
This is simply wrong.
If you think about math as only solving differential equations and inverting matrices by hand, then maybe. This might be how maths are taught in secondary school, but is not at all representative of university-level maths. I use many fields of math on a daily basis at my job and for my personal projects, all of which I've taken courses on:
* Formal logic: boolean algebra, set theory. These are the core of any algorithm.
* Graph theory: working with parse trees, ASTs, and other problems involving relationships.
* Linear algebra: any problem that requires working with vectors or matrices, e.g graphics, many areas of machine learning, ...
* Category theory: type systems, algebraic data types, many other functional programming abstractions.
I'm sure there are many more that I've taken for granted.
If you think about math as only solving differential equations and inverting matrices by hand, then maybe. This might be how maths are taught in secondary school, but is not at all representative of university-level maths. I use many fields of math on a daily basis at my job and for my personal projects, all of which I've taken courses on:
* Formal logic: boolean algebra, set theory. These are the core of any algorithm.
* Graph theory: working with parse trees, ASTs, and other problems involving relationships.
* Linear algebra: any problem that requires working with vectors or matrices, e.g graphics, many areas of machine learning, ...
* Category theory: type systems, algebraic data types, many other functional programming abstractions.
I'm sure there are many more that I've taken for granted.
[deleted]
I have seen folks who are relatively new to programming work like this.
Rather than simple laziness, it was often because they felt intimidated by their lack of knowledge and wanted to be more productive.
However, the result of a ChatGPT based workflow is that reasoning often is the very last resort. Ask the LLM for a solution, paste it in, get an error, paste that in, get a new solution, get another error, ask for a fix again, etc. etc.
Before someone chimes in to say this is like Stack Overflow: no it isn't. Real people expect you to put some work and effort into first describing your problem, then solving it. You would rarely find someone willing to go through such an exercise with you, and they probably wouldn't hallucinate broken code to you while doing it.
15 minutes of this and it turns out to be something silly that ChatGPT would never catch - e.g. you have installed a very old version of the Python module for some internal company reason. But because the reasoning muscle isn't being built up, and the context isn't being built up, they can't figure it out.
They didn't see the bit on the docs page that says "this function was added in version 1.5" because they didn't write the function call, and didn't open the documentation, and perhaps wouldn't even consider opening the documentation because that's what ChatGPT is for. In fact, they might not have even consciously chosen that library because again.. that's what ChatGPT is for.
Rather than simple laziness, it was often because they felt intimidated by their lack of knowledge and wanted to be more productive.
However, the result of a ChatGPT based workflow is that reasoning often is the very last resort. Ask the LLM for a solution, paste it in, get an error, paste that in, get a new solution, get another error, ask for a fix again, etc. etc.
Before someone chimes in to say this is like Stack Overflow: no it isn't. Real people expect you to put some work and effort into first describing your problem, then solving it. You would rarely find someone willing to go through such an exercise with you, and they probably wouldn't hallucinate broken code to you while doing it.
15 minutes of this and it turns out to be something silly that ChatGPT would never catch - e.g. you have installed a very old version of the Python module for some internal company reason. But because the reasoning muscle isn't being built up, and the context isn't being built up, they can't figure it out.
They didn't see the bit on the docs page that says "this function was added in version 1.5" because they didn't write the function call, and didn't open the documentation, and perhaps wouldn't even consider opening the documentation because that's what ChatGPT is for. In fact, they might not have even consciously chosen that library because again.. that's what ChatGPT is for.
> Ask the LLM for a solution, paste it in, get an error, paste that in, get a new solution, get another error, ask for a fix again, etc. etc.
That's exactly what I've seen as well. The students don't even read the code, let alone try to reason through how it works. They just develop hand-eye coordination for copy-pasting.
> Rather than simple laziness, it was often because they felt intimidated by their lack of knowledge and wanted to be more productive.
Part of it really is laziness, but what you say is also true. Unfortunately, this is the nature of learning. Reading or listening is by itself a weak stimulus for building neural pathways. You need to actively recall and apply, and struggle with problems until they yield. It is so much easier to look up a solution somewhere. And now you don't even to look anything up anymore -- just ask.
That's exactly what I've seen as well. The students don't even read the code, let alone try to reason through how it works. They just develop hand-eye coordination for copy-pasting.
> Rather than simple laziness, it was often because they felt intimidated by their lack of knowledge and wanted to be more productive.
Part of it really is laziness, but what you say is also true. Unfortunately, this is the nature of learning. Reading or listening is by itself a weak stimulus for building neural pathways. You need to actively recall and apply, and struggle with problems until they yield. It is so much easier to look up a solution somewhere. And now you don't even to look anything up anymore -- just ask.
Just a funny, or depressing, aside - and then a point about LLMs.
Real coding can, unfortunately, be as bad as that or worse. Here is one very famous HN comment from 2018, and I know what he is talking about because participating in this madness was my first job after university, dispelling a lot of my illusions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941
I went into that job (of porting Oracle to another Unix platform for an Oracle platform partner) full of enthusiasm and gave up finding any meaning or enjoyment after the first few weeks, or trying to understand or improve anything. If AI could do at least some of that job it would actually a big plus.
(it's the working-on-Oracle-code comment if you didn't already guess it)
I think there's a good chance code becomes more like biology. You can understand the details, but there are sooo many of them, and there are way too many connections directly and indirectly across layers. You have to find higher level methods because it's too much for a direct comprehension.
I saw a main code contributor in a startup I worked at work kind of like that. Not all his fault, forced to move too quickly and the code was so ill defined, not even the big boss knowing what they wanted and only talking in meta terms and always coming up with new sometimes contradicting ideas. The code was very hard to comprehend and debug, especially since much of it was distributed algorithms. So his approach was running it with demo data, observing higher level outcomes, and tweaking this or that component until it kind of worked. It never worked reliably, it was demo-quality software at best. But he managed to implement all the new ideas from management at least.
I found that style interesting and could not dismiss it outright, even though I really really did not want to have to debug that thing in production. But I saw something different from what I was used to, focus on a higher level, working when you just can't have the same depth of understanding of what you are doing as one would traditionally like. Given my Oracle experience, I saw how this would be a useful style IRL for many big long-running projects, like that Oracle code, that you had no chance of comprehending or improving without "rm -rf" and a restart which you could not do.
I think education needs to also show these more "biology-level complexity" and more statistical higher level approaches. Much of our software is getting too complex for the traditional low-level methods.
I see LLMs as just part of such a toolkit for the future. On the one hand, there is supplying code for "traditional" smaller projects, where you still have hope to be in control and have at least the seniors fully understand the system. On the other hand, LLMs could help with too-complex systems, not with making them understandable, that is impossible for those messy systems, but with being able to still productively work with them, add new features and debug issues. Code such as in the Oracle case. A new tool for even higher levels of messiness and complexity in our systems, which we won't be able to engineer away due to real life constraints.
Real coding can, unfortunately, be as bad as that or worse. Here is one very famous HN comment from 2018, and I know what he is talking about because participating in this madness was my first job after university, dispelling a lot of my illusions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941
I went into that job (of porting Oracle to another Unix platform for an Oracle platform partner) full of enthusiasm and gave up finding any meaning or enjoyment after the first few weeks, or trying to understand or improve anything. If AI could do at least some of that job it would actually a big plus.
(it's the working-on-Oracle-code comment if you didn't already guess it)
I think there's a good chance code becomes more like biology. You can understand the details, but there are sooo many of them, and there are way too many connections directly and indirectly across layers. You have to find higher level methods because it's too much for a direct comprehension.
I saw a main code contributor in a startup I worked at work kind of like that. Not all his fault, forced to move too quickly and the code was so ill defined, not even the big boss knowing what they wanted and only talking in meta terms and always coming up with new sometimes contradicting ideas. The code was very hard to comprehend and debug, especially since much of it was distributed algorithms. So his approach was running it with demo data, observing higher level outcomes, and tweaking this or that component until it kind of worked. It never worked reliably, it was demo-quality software at best. But he managed to implement all the new ideas from management at least.
I found that style interesting and could not dismiss it outright, even though I really really did not want to have to debug that thing in production. But I saw something different from what I was used to, focus on a higher level, working when you just can't have the same depth of understanding of what you are doing as one would traditionally like. Given my Oracle experience, I saw how this would be a useful style IRL for many big long-running projects, like that Oracle code, that you had no chance of comprehending or improving without "rm -rf" and a restart which you could not do.
I think education needs to also show these more "biology-level complexity" and more statistical higher level approaches. Much of our software is getting too complex for the traditional low-level methods.
I see LLMs as just part of such a toolkit for the future. On the one hand, there is supplying code for "traditional" smaller projects, where you still have hope to be in control and have at least the seniors fully understand the system. On the other hand, LLMs could help with too-complex systems, not with making them understandable, that is impossible for those messy systems, but with being able to still productively work with them, add new features and debug issues. Code such as in the Oracle case. A new tool for even higher levels of messiness and complexity in our systems, which we won't be able to engineer away due to real life constraints.
I think AI will have a dual effect. It will make some folks smarter and others dumber.
For example, you could have ChatGPT write your code for you, then explain it to you step by step.
It can be an interactive conversation.
Or you could copy/paste it.
In one case it acts as a tutor.
In another case it just does your work for you.
For example, you could have ChatGPT write your code for you, then explain it to you step by step.
It can be an interactive conversation.
Or you could copy/paste it.
In one case it acts as a tutor.
In another case it just does your work for you.
I agree with this.
I've used AI as a crutch for a time, and felt my skills get worse. Now I've set it up to never have it give me entire solutions, just examples and tips on how to get it done.
I've struggled with Shader Programming for a while, tried to learn it from different sources and failed a lot. It felt like something unreachable for me, I don't really know why really. But with the help of an AI that's fine-tuned for mentoring, I really understood some of the concepts. It outlined what I should do and asked socratic questions that made me think. I've gotten way better at it and actually have a pretty solid understanding of the concepts now (well, I think).
But sometimes at work I do give in and get it to write an entire script for me, out of laziness and maybe boredom. Their significant advances as of late with "extended thinking" and the likes made them much more likely to one-shot the writing of a slightly complex script... Which in turn made it harder to not just say "hey, that sounds like boring work, let's have the AI do the biggest part of it and I'll patch up the rest".
I've used AI as a crutch for a time, and felt my skills get worse. Now I've set it up to never have it give me entire solutions, just examples and tips on how to get it done.
I've struggled with Shader Programming for a while, tried to learn it from different sources and failed a lot. It felt like something unreachable for me, I don't really know why really. But with the help of an AI that's fine-tuned for mentoring, I really understood some of the concepts. It outlined what I should do and asked socratic questions that made me think. I've gotten way better at it and actually have a pretty solid understanding of the concepts now (well, I think).
But sometimes at work I do give in and get it to write an entire script for me, out of laziness and maybe boredom. Their significant advances as of late with "extended thinking" and the likes made them much more likely to one-shot the writing of a slightly complex script... Which in turn made it harder to not just say "hey, that sounds like boring work, let's have the AI do the biggest part of it and I'll patch up the rest".
I have a similar setup going on. I'm a heavy user of LLMs, but the only time I use the code they generate is for throwaway scripts. I like to describe the problem I'm working on, paste in my code, and ask about everything wrong with it. Am I missing something? Are there glaring flaws or inefficiencies? Are there better ways to approach this? I never take suggestions unless I fully understand and agree with them. There are lots of poor suggestions, but lots of really good ones too.
Infinite tailored critique and advice. I have found this immensely valuable, and I have learned lots doing it. LLMs are static analyzers on steroids.
Infinite tailored critique and advice. I have found this immensely valuable, and I have learned lots doing it. LLMs are static analyzers on steroids.
What AI tuned for mentoring did you use?
It is one thing to get code explained to you (which can also be good) but another to engage in finding a solution, explore the problem space, fail a couple of times and learn from your mistakes also, and of course the embodied process itself of writing the code. Learning is an active process; having stuff explained to you is not bad but it does not lead to the same depth of understanding. Granted, not all subjects and cases benefit the same from deeper understanding and it is impossible to get into depth with everything. So this is a trade-off in each case to decide how much one may want to go in, and it is great that we also now have this option to not go in the same depth. But imo one should be mindful about it, and make conscious decisions on how they use LLMs in case where they may think that understanding a subject more is also important.
There are still ways that LLMs can be used in that case, eg having them review your code, suggest alternatives to your code, eg more idiomatic ways to do sth, when you delve into sth new etc, and treat their output critically of course, but actually writing one's code is important for some kinds of understanding.
There are still ways that LLMs can be used in that case, eg having them review your code, suggest alternatives to your code, eg more idiomatic ways to do sth, when you delve into sth new etc, and treat their output critically of course, but actually writing one's code is important for some kinds of understanding.
> In one case it acts as a tutor
This can be very useful when you are learning programming.
You don't always have a tutor available and you shouldn't only rely on tutors.
It might be useful when you start learning a new programming language/framework, but you should learn on how to articulate a problem and search for solutions, e.g. going through stackoverflow posts and identify if the post applies and solves your problem.
After a while (took way too long for me) you realize that the best way to solve problems is by looking up the documentation/manpage of a project/programming language/whatever and really try to understand the problem at its core.
This can be very useful when you are learning programming.
You don't always have a tutor available and you shouldn't only rely on tutors.
It might be useful when you start learning a new programming language/framework, but you should learn on how to articulate a problem and search for solutions, e.g. going through stackoverflow posts and identify if the post applies and solves your problem.
After a while (took way too long for me) you realize that the best way to solve problems is by looking up the documentation/manpage of a project/programming language/whatever and really try to understand the problem at its core.
I wonder how much even this approach would help. I would liken it to studying past exam papers with the solutions on hand. My experience is you actually have to solve the problems yourself to actually properly absorb the concepts, rather than just copy them into your short term memory for a short while.
Ai will make experts more effective and remove most people who are going to grow into experts.
Basically most people will be idiots, except for the mental exercise type people who like using their mental muscles.
So education will stop being a way to move up in life.
Basically most people will be idiots, except for the mental exercise type people who like using their mental muscles.
So education will stop being a way to move up in life.
I agree - the truly curious will be rewarded while those who couldn’t care less will mindlessly copy and paste. Maybe that will give the rest of us job security?
It's just Google (web search) v2, if you are able to input the right terms and interpret the results critically you'll be accelerated. If not, you're just another mark.
Also there's no context or docs to dig into, it just spits something out that looks right but might be relying on deprecated code or completely wrong.
Ask it to explain something? At least it's confident I guess.
Ask it to explain something? At least it's confident I guess.
> There is a generation of completely unemployable "graduates" in the pipeline.
I feel like that was always the case, at least since like 10 years ago and by my definition.
I feel like that was always the case, at least since like 10 years ago and by my definition.
I wasn't unemployable as a graduate, I found a job after all. But I was near enough useless and started from the ground up.
I've always felt my real education in software engineering started at work.
20 odd years later I lead a large engineering team and see the same with a lot of graduates we hire. There's a few exceptions but most are as clueless as I was at that age.
I've always felt my real education in software engineering started at work.
20 odd years later I lead a large engineering team and see the same with a lot of graduates we hire. There's a few exceptions but most are as clueless as I was at that age.
Yeah, I graduated around 2000 and had to learn how to work on a professional software engineering team.
That doesn't mean my education was worthless—quite the opposite. It's just that what you learn in a software engineering degree isn't "how to write code and do software development in a professional team in their specific programming language and libraries and frameworks and using their specific tooling and their office politics."
That doesn't mean my education was worthless—quite the opposite. It's just that what you learn in a software engineering degree isn't "how to write code and do software development in a professional team in their specific programming language and libraries and frameworks and using their specific tooling and their office politics."
Even professional software development as you know it may not stick around for very long. I believe knowledge and experience gained along the way can translate across different context and you can use that to pivot and adapt to the environment.
The knowledge I got in school is definitely a lot more durable than the experience. Basic knowledge is still what everything is built on.
That matches up with my general expectations of graduates. They should be smart, but are not expected to really know much.
A diploma from the type of school the author describes is already pretty worthless, imo.
I don't get why schools can't just get strict in response to these issues. No electronics in class, period. Accessibility problems can be fixed by having each impaired student get a volunteer scribe for the class.
You're in school to learn, and electronics hinder in-person education more than they help, especially as ChatGPT style AI is available on them.
I don't get why schools can't just get strict in response to these issues. No electronics in class, period. Accessibility problems can be fixed by having each impaired student get a volunteer scribe for the class.
You're in school to learn, and electronics hinder in-person education more than they help, especially as ChatGPT style AI is available on them.
The "no devices in school" rule has been tried, scientifically tested, and it doesn't really improve outcomes: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
The real damage is in the brains and attention spans, traditional school just can't compete with the massive dopamine overstimulus of System A thinking students get every day for an average of 6-8h outside school, by simply requiring focused System B reasoning on tiresome and (comparatively) dull tasks while enforcing dopamine withdrawal.
The real damage is in the brains and attention spans, traditional school just can't compete with the massive dopamine overstimulus of System A thinking students get every day for an average of 6-8h outside school, by simply requiring focused System B reasoning on tiresome and (comparatively) dull tasks while enforcing dopamine withdrawal.
Your appealing to authority with a lancet article but the article just concludes that kids don't spend less time on their phones because of the school bans.
Irrespective of brain feedback mechanisms after school it is still a better teaching/learning environment for students to have a device ban during school time.
What kids or parents enable after school is beyond school policies. Nevertheless teachers should be minimally protected in their ability to teach and kids in their ability to learn.
Irrespective of brain feedback mechanisms after school it is still a better teaching/learning environment for students to have a device ban during school time.
What kids or parents enable after school is beyond school policies. Nevertheless teachers should be minimally protected in their ability to teach and kids in their ability to learn.
Somewhat ironically given the topic, you are misreading the scientific article:
> No significant differences in pupil outcomes were observed between permissive and restrictive schools for all other behavioural outcomes (Fig. 2, Table 3) or for attainment in English (adjusted odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI 0.85–2.47, p = 0.18, reference = permissive) and Maths (adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.45–2.27, p = 0.98, reference = permissive).
Nothing I've said could be interpreted to support the exposure of kids to addictive devices, simply that the quick fix proposed does not seem to have any effect.
> No significant differences in pupil outcomes were observed between permissive and restrictive schools for all other behavioural outcomes (Fig. 2, Table 3) or for attainment in English (adjusted odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI 0.85–2.47, p = 0.18, reference = permissive) and Maths (adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.45–2.27, p = 0.98, reference = permissive).
Nothing I've said could be interpreted to support the exposure of kids to addictive devices, simply that the quick fix proposed does not seem to have any effect.
The first author's commentary at https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj-2024-082569.full is easier to read than the paper you linked to.
In it she suggests that rather than thinking of a smart phone ban like a smoking ban,
> A more constructive analogy than smoking might be driving cars. In response to increasing injuries and deaths from car crashes, rather than banning cars, society built an ecosystem of product safety regulations for companies (seatbelts, airbags) and consumers (vehicle safety tests, penalties), public infrastructure (traffic lights), and education (licences) to support safer use. Comparative efforts in product safety and education are needed to supplement debates about smartphone and social media bans and to balance the positive and indispensable role of digital technologies against their potential harms.
It's an intriguing analogy because we know well how dangerous cars are to health and the environment, we know there are people who don't want to drive but are forced to because there are no alternatives, and we know how much many drivers oppose support for bike lanes, mass transit, and other alternatives.
And we know the history of how the UK over her entire life has transformed to be more and more car dependent.
If we embrace that analogy, then we need to support alternatives to being digital, with the right to an offline life.
I don't know what System A and System B are, a DDG search for "System A {thinking,reasoning}" finds nothing useful, and the paper says nothing about it nor about comparing dopamine levels.
In it she suggests that rather than thinking of a smart phone ban like a smoking ban,
> A more constructive analogy than smoking might be driving cars. In response to increasing injuries and deaths from car crashes, rather than banning cars, society built an ecosystem of product safety regulations for companies (seatbelts, airbags) and consumers (vehicle safety tests, penalties), public infrastructure (traffic lights), and education (licences) to support safer use. Comparative efforts in product safety and education are needed to supplement debates about smartphone and social media bans and to balance the positive and indispensable role of digital technologies against their potential harms.
It's an intriguing analogy because we know well how dangerous cars are to health and the environment, we know there are people who don't want to drive but are forced to because there are no alternatives, and we know how much many drivers oppose support for bike lanes, mass transit, and other alternatives.
And we know the history of how the UK over her entire life has transformed to be more and more car dependent.
If we embrace that analogy, then we need to support alternatives to being digital, with the right to an offline life.
I don't know what System A and System B are, a DDG search for "System A {thinking,reasoning}" finds nothing useful, and the paper says nothing about it nor about comparing dopamine levels.
I apologize for the "System A/B" confusion, I was of course trying to reference the "System 1/2" paradigm from Daniel Kahneman's well known book "Thinking, Fast and Slow".
Addictive apps are algorithmically tuned to maximize user screen time so my (unproven) hypothesis is that tend to promote content that minimizes deep System 2 thinking, which is well known to tire the brain and deplete its energy storage. Educational content - if it's any good - is all about training deep thinking.
Addictive apps are algorithmically tuned to maximize user screen time so my (unproven) hypothesis is that tend to promote content that minimizes deep System 2 thinking, which is well known to tire the brain and deplete its energy storage. Educational content - if it's any good - is all about training deep thinking.
Thank you. I had not heard of it before.
Has it been validated? I cannot find citations which test and verify the applicability of that idea.
I ask because there's a long history (left-brain/right-brain, 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, learning style theory, power pose, etc) where intriguing ideas which makes some intuitive sense end up being not so clear cut.
Has it been validated? I cannot find citations which test and verify the applicability of that idea.
I ask because there's a long history (left-brain/right-brain, 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, learning style theory, power pose, etc) where intriguing ideas which makes some intuitive sense end up being not so clear cut.
At its core, I think it's basically just a self-evident metaphor of how human cognition works that does not need any validation.
For example it's very clear that when you see a square you can instantly tell what shape it is without reasoning about the number and length of the sides, angles etc.; another System 1 example would be driving, you can do it for hours without even thinking through your physical actions, I need to press this pedal, shift into this gear, etc. the car basically becomes an extension of your body.
Conversely, when asked to mentally multiply 175 and 12 the answer does not similarly jump out in the head of most people, and you need to run an algorithm to get the answer, and the process of doing that is frustrating and tiresome if you don't have the exercise; conversely, with enough exercise, the answer might jump out, or your brain might begin to see patterns and shortcuts like 175 = 350/2 and 12 = 10+2 etc. This is what education forces, this continuous exercise that leads to higher cognitive function.
I don't think you could dispute the paradigm in this vague and self-evident form, but surely the exact details of how System 1 does its pattern matching and how System 2 rationally trains it to recognize future patterns are up for debate. Some of the examples and arguments Kahneman gives are dated and have been discredited or questioned in the great psychology replication crisis.
For example it's very clear that when you see a square you can instantly tell what shape it is without reasoning about the number and length of the sides, angles etc.; another System 1 example would be driving, you can do it for hours without even thinking through your physical actions, I need to press this pedal, shift into this gear, etc. the car basically becomes an extension of your body.
Conversely, when asked to mentally multiply 175 and 12 the answer does not similarly jump out in the head of most people, and you need to run an algorithm to get the answer, and the process of doing that is frustrating and tiresome if you don't have the exercise; conversely, with enough exercise, the answer might jump out, or your brain might begin to see patterns and shortcuts like 175 = 350/2 and 12 = 10+2 etc. This is what education forces, this continuous exercise that leads to higher cognitive function.
I don't think you could dispute the paradigm in this vague and self-evident form, but surely the exact details of how System 1 does its pattern matching and how System 2 rationally trains it to recognize future patterns are up for debate. Some of the examples and arguments Kahneman gives are dated and have been discredited or questioned in the great psychology replication crisis.
Yes, the papers I read trace the idea back to the Ancient Greeks.
That doesn't mean it's all that valid, just like left-brain/right-brain dualism.
Are there actually many different systems, and not just two?
For example, you mention recognizing a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_recognition_(cognitive_... says "Neuropsychological evidence affirms that there are four specific stages identified in the process of object recognition".
Is System 1 equivalent to all four stages, or does it include more or less than that?
Is there a similar set of stages for multiplication, and how does one tell if it's System 1 or System 2?
If there is an innate modularity of mind, does the System 1/System 2 lets us assign which modules are which?
In Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development there is "a series of four qualitatively distinct stages (the sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational stages)." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-general_learning )
Which of those are System 1 or System 2, or is that a completely different view of how the mind works? If the latter, which makes stronger predictive claims and what is the result of comparative testing?
That same page describes John B. Carroll's three stratum theory, and others.
That there are so many different self-evident metaphors for human cognition is exactly the reason it needs validation.
That doesn't mean it's all that valid, just like left-brain/right-brain dualism.
Are there actually many different systems, and not just two?
For example, you mention recognizing a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_recognition_(cognitive_... says "Neuropsychological evidence affirms that there are four specific stages identified in the process of object recognition".
Is System 1 equivalent to all four stages, or does it include more or less than that?
Is there a similar set of stages for multiplication, and how does one tell if it's System 1 or System 2?
If there is an innate modularity of mind, does the System 1/System 2 lets us assign which modules are which?
In Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development there is "a series of four qualitatively distinct stages (the sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational stages)." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-general_learning )
Which of those are System 1 or System 2, or is that a completely different view of how the mind works? If the latter, which makes stronger predictive claims and what is the result of comparative testing?
That same page describes John B. Carroll's three stratum theory, and others.
That there are so many different self-evident metaphors for human cognition is exactly the reason it needs validation.
> Students' sleep, classroom behaviour, exercise or how long they spend on their phones overall also seems to be no different for schools with phone bans and those without, the academics found.
> However, they did find that spending longer on smartphones and social media in general was linked with worse results for all of those measures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8plvqv60lo
About the same study. Again, when kids are not on their phones they do better at school. Period. A ban is just a way to try to get there. If it's not effective because kids skirt the rules, we try something else
> However, they did find that spending longer on smartphones and social media in general was linked with worse results for all of those measures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8plvqv60lo
About the same study. Again, when kids are not on their phones they do better at school. Period. A ban is just a way to try to get there. If it's not effective because kids skirt the rules, we try something else
I think payola diplomas will probably continue to be valuable, since they represent non-falsifiable economic power/sacrifice. Even if schools just literally sold diplomas for 100k, they would still be useful for business to filter out people who are too poor to matter (i.e. they have such divergent interests from shareholders/management that it would be more trouble that its worth to try and socialize them to a particular professional role).
This is a bit less cut-and-dried, but IMO cryptocurrency has normalized this kind of view where simply wasting resources is itself a way to generate, or at least represent, value.
This is a bit less cut-and-dried, but IMO cryptocurrency has normalized this kind of view where simply wasting resources is itself a way to generate, or at least represent, value.
Computers were supposed to be bicycles for the mind, but increasingly we want them to think for us.
Well, I see an e-bike analogy around the corner. People dont want to invest the energy anmore, now that they can buy expensive batteries to help with the pedaling. That is pretty much the human nature.
They were, but that vision was killed as soon as the phrase you quote was spoken.
LLMs are, in fact, one of the few products in the past decades that - at least for now - align with this vision. That's because they empower the end users directly. Anyone can just go to chatgpt.com or claude.ai to access a tool that will understand their problem, no matter how clumsily formulated, and solve it, or teach them how to solve it, or otherwise address it in a useful fashion. That's pure and quite general force multiplier.
But don't you worry, plenty of corporations and countless startups are hard at work to, like with all computing before, strip down the bicycle and offer you Uber and theme park rides for your mind.
LLMs are, in fact, one of the few products in the past decades that - at least for now - align with this vision. That's because they empower the end users directly. Anyone can just go to chatgpt.com or claude.ai to access a tool that will understand their problem, no matter how clumsily formulated, and solve it, or teach them how to solve it, or otherwise address it in a useful fashion. That's pure and quite general force multiplier.
But don't you worry, plenty of corporations and countless startups are hard at work to, like with all computing before, strip down the bicycle and offer you Uber and theme park rides for your mind.
> LLMs are, in fact, one of the few products in the past decades that - at least for now - align with this vision. That's because they empower the end users directly.
Oh BULLSHIT. Computer users have been empowered since the very first programming languages were invented. They simply chose not to engage with them.
Oh BULLSHIT. Computer users have been empowered since the very first programming languages were invented. They simply chose not to engage with them.
Who says anything about programming languages? Unless all the bicycle is to you is servicing it?
Even if, the last time what you said was true was somewhere in the 80s, maybe early 90s. Afterwards, "programming" was solidly a domain of professionals, not regular users. I don't know about MacOS, but Windows didn't even ship with anything resembling a programming environment until 2010s.
Also, time and again with technology, the users didn't chose shit. Technology is thrust at them, it's first and foremost a supplier-driven phenomenon. It's the vendors that chose to gradually remove any ability of customization and end-user automation from software and devices. Initially it was under guise of UI/UX - simplify everything, avoid confusion (and making users engage with their brains). Nowadays, the software is as basic, dumb and functionality-free as it can possibly be, so the excuse shifted to security - everything an end-user can do an attacker can do, so let's take away every possible use that isn't authorized by application and OS vendors.
What makes LLMs refreshing is that, for now, they're fully general. The main chat apps don't limit what you can talk about (beyond the usual ass-covering corporate prudishness) - hell, you can use them to work around bullshit limitations regular software has to stop you from harming vendors' profits. But again, only a matter of time - users will get disenfranchised again as near-raw access to LLMs gets replaced by "AI apps".
And what do I mean limitations? Think of Copilot in Microsoft Office. If you used it in the past year, you definitely know its limitations. A monkey could hook up GPT-4 to VBA and get more functional Copilot than what Microsoft gave us. But it's not because they can't make powerful assistant - that's the easy part. The challenge they took is making as weak assistant as possible that does anything useful at all. That's the prevailing attitude in software industry, and it has been for good two decades now.
Even if, the last time what you said was true was somewhere in the 80s, maybe early 90s. Afterwards, "programming" was solidly a domain of professionals, not regular users. I don't know about MacOS, but Windows didn't even ship with anything resembling a programming environment until 2010s.
Also, time and again with technology, the users didn't chose shit. Technology is thrust at them, it's first and foremost a supplier-driven phenomenon. It's the vendors that chose to gradually remove any ability of customization and end-user automation from software and devices. Initially it was under guise of UI/UX - simplify everything, avoid confusion (and making users engage with their brains). Nowadays, the software is as basic, dumb and functionality-free as it can possibly be, so the excuse shifted to security - everything an end-user can do an attacker can do, so let's take away every possible use that isn't authorized by application and OS vendors.
What makes LLMs refreshing is that, for now, they're fully general. The main chat apps don't limit what you can talk about (beyond the usual ass-covering corporate prudishness) - hell, you can use them to work around bullshit limitations regular software has to stop you from harming vendors' profits. But again, only a matter of time - users will get disenfranchised again as near-raw access to LLMs gets replaced by "AI apps".
And what do I mean limitations? Think of Copilot in Microsoft Office. If you used it in the past year, you definitely know its limitations. A monkey could hook up GPT-4 to VBA and get more functional Copilot than what Microsoft gave us. But it's not because they can't make powerful assistant - that's the easy part. The challenge they took is making as weak assistant as possible that does anything useful at all. That's the prevailing attitude in software industry, and it has been for good two decades now.
> Afterwards, "programming" was solidly a domain of professionals, not regular users. I don't know about MacOS, but Windows didn't even ship with anything resembling a programming environment until 2010s.
I'm not sure I agree completely...back in the day on the Mac we had Hypercard, RezEdit, and I do recall various code builder tools that someone could kinda wire up small tools - think things we called "4GLs". On Windows, Visual Basic was a full programming language and tooling, but I distinctly recall lots of non-programmers creating small office scripts and tools. In the late 90s we had things like FrontPage where non-programmers could wire up a simple web page and make it do things they wanted...
Today? Open up Xcode and stare into the abyss of confusion. Apple has made these "Playground" tools - man, that's a big jump for someone who isn't serious about programming to get from there to a full-fledged Swift app ready to deploy. Can generative AI tools bridge this gap for non-programmers? Possibly, but I think we're aligned that these tools aren't likely to replace us anytime soon, because of something you allude to - what's possible today is so much more complex than what we were building in the 80s and 90s, and AI isn't close to being able to replicate all of layers of stuff a professional programer wades through every day.
I'm not sure I agree completely...back in the day on the Mac we had Hypercard, RezEdit, and I do recall various code builder tools that someone could kinda wire up small tools - think things we called "4GLs". On Windows, Visual Basic was a full programming language and tooling, but I distinctly recall lots of non-programmers creating small office scripts and tools. In the late 90s we had things like FrontPage where non-programmers could wire up a simple web page and make it do things they wanted...
Today? Open up Xcode and stare into the abyss of confusion. Apple has made these "Playground" tools - man, that's a big jump for someone who isn't serious about programming to get from there to a full-fledged Swift app ready to deploy. Can generative AI tools bridge this gap for non-programmers? Possibly, but I think we're aligned that these tools aren't likely to replace us anytime soon, because of something you allude to - what's possible today is so much more complex than what we were building in the 80s and 90s, and AI isn't close to being able to replicate all of layers of stuff a professional programer wades through every day.
> I don't know about MacOS, but Windows didn't even ship with anything resembling a programming environment until 2010s.
MacOS only really started doing that with OS X. The classic environment had an undocumented (to normal people) debugger for a console, and likewise HyperCard did exist but I never once saw documentation explaining how to actually use it (perhaps I was looking in all the wrong places?)
I eventually found REALbasic on a magazine cover CD, and paid a lot of pocket money for an educational version of Metrowerks' C compiler that only output 68k-series binaries, neither of which my machines (or OS upgrades) arrived with.
MacOS only really started doing that with OS X. The classic environment had an undocumented (to normal people) debugger for a console, and likewise HyperCard did exist but I never once saw documentation explaining how to actually use it (perhaps I was looking in all the wrong places?)
I eventually found REALbasic on a magazine cover CD, and paid a lot of pocket money for an educational version of Metrowerks' C compiler that only output 68k-series binaries, neither of which my machines (or OS upgrades) arrived with.
Programming used to be hard, and not everybody is as smart as you are. Things change when difficult things become easy. Engaging with an LLM to have it generate code for you is so far removed from taking a physical book, looking in its index, then hoping it talks about your particular problem, that it's not bullshit.
> Programming used to be hard, and not everybody is as smart as you are.
But some people are willing to learn brutally hard.
But some people are willing to learn brutally hard.
Context here is "bicycles for the mind", a metaphor that was talking about people in general - it's not "bicycles for the minds of 0.001% of the population dedicated enough and lucky enough to be able to invest large amount of time to master the arcane arts of writing code, in an antagonistic environment, as software vendors try to prevent them from doing it".
Learning to ride a bicycle is also hard work. :-)
Fair enough :).
(As a father facing the challenge now, I wonder if it's harder for the kid or for the parent...)
(As a father facing the challenge now, I wonder if it's harder for the kid or for the parent...)
Full self driving Teslas for the mind
Lol
I like the implication that they might drive you into the median or the side of a semi truck. Very apt analogy - we built it because we could, without asking whether we should
I like the implication that they might drive you into the median or the side of a semi truck. Very apt analogy - we built it because we could, without asking whether we should
And just like the Tesla thing, accidents are mostly from people relying too heavily on the raw output, not checking or supervising enough, overestimating the system's reliability/consistency.
We have robots do physical chores for us: washing machine, robo-vac etc, so why can't we have robots that do mental chores for us? For most of us, our jobs aren't a pleasure, but a chore necessary to earn money to pay rent. How many factory workers do you think enjoy bolting the same car parts to a car over and over again till retirement?
So if I can outsource the mundane, annoying and repetitive parts of SW development (like typing the coding) to a machine, so that I can focus on the parts I enjoy (debugging, requirements gathering, customer interaction, architecture etc), what's wrong with that?
If the end product is good and fulfills the customers needs who cares if a large part of it was written by a machine and not by a human?
I also wish we can go back to the days we were coding in assembly in stead of say JavaScript, but that's not gonna happen professionally for 99% of jobs, you either use JS to ship quickly or get run over by the companies who use JS while you write assembly. ML assisted coding will be the next step.
So if I can outsource the mundane, annoying and repetitive parts of SW development (like typing the coding) to a machine, so that I can focus on the parts I enjoy (debugging, requirements gathering, customer interaction, architecture etc), what's wrong with that?
If the end product is good and fulfills the customers needs who cares if a large part of it was written by a machine and not by a human?
I also wish we can go back to the days we were coding in assembly in stead of say JavaScript, but that's not gonna happen professionally for 99% of jobs, you either use JS to ship quickly or get run over by the companies who use JS while you write assembly. ML assisted coding will be the next step.
> We have robots do physical chores for us: washing machine, robo-vac etc, so why can't we have robots that do mental chores for us?
Sure, we can! That's in some sense what computers are. It's nice that they can quickly multiply two integers far faster than you can. Handing off that mental chore to the computer allows you to do your job better in every way.
The difference (and yes, I know that I'm perhaps falling into the trap of "but this time it's different!") is that AI models are very often used in a completely different capacity. You inspect the plates, load up the dishwasher, run it, and inspect the results. You don't just wave your hand over the kitchen and say "this dirty, do fix", and then blindly trust you'll have clean cutlery in a few hours.
Moreover, the menial tasks and assembly-line work that you describe are all repetitive. Most interesting coding isn't (since code has zero duplication cost, duplicate work is pointless – outside of the obvious things like fun and learning, but you want to keep those out of this discussion anyway).
> So if I can outsource the mundane, annoying and repetitive parts of SW development (like typing the coding) to a machine, so that I can focus on the parts I enjoy (debugging, requirements gathering, customer interaction, architecture etc), what's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. Except you'll still need to inspect the AI's output. And in order to do that, you'll need to have a good understanding of the problem and how it solved it. Maybe you do. That's excellent! This discussion is lamenting that, seemingly, more and more people don't.
Sure, we can! That's in some sense what computers are. It's nice that they can quickly multiply two integers far faster than you can. Handing off that mental chore to the computer allows you to do your job better in every way.
The difference (and yes, I know that I'm perhaps falling into the trap of "but this time it's different!") is that AI models are very often used in a completely different capacity. You inspect the plates, load up the dishwasher, run it, and inspect the results. You don't just wave your hand over the kitchen and say "this dirty, do fix", and then blindly trust you'll have clean cutlery in a few hours.
Moreover, the menial tasks and assembly-line work that you describe are all repetitive. Most interesting coding isn't (since code has zero duplication cost, duplicate work is pointless – outside of the obvious things like fun and learning, but you want to keep those out of this discussion anyway).
> So if I can outsource the mundane, annoying and repetitive parts of SW development (like typing the coding) to a machine, so that I can focus on the parts I enjoy (debugging, requirements gathering, customer interaction, architecture etc), what's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. Except you'll still need to inspect the AI's output. And in order to do that, you'll need to have a good understanding of the problem and how it solved it. Maybe you do. That's excellent! This discussion is lamenting that, seemingly, more and more people don't.
There's middle ground between bolting same parts all day and completely avoiding anything difficult. Both body and mind atrophy when they aren't used and that necessarily includes some repetition.
> So if I can outsource the mundane, annoying and repetitive parts of SW development (like coding) to a machine, so that I can focus on the parts I enjoy (debugging, requirements gathering, customer interaction, etc), what's wrong with that?
That's ok when you already understand programming and can guide the codegen and step in to correct when it generates bullshit. But you don't get to that level without learning programming yourself. Education is built from the ground up towards higher and higher levels of abstraction. You don't get to skip learning arithmetic on your way to learning quantum physics, just because numpy will do all your arithmetic once you get there. In other words, it's ok for people who don't like cooking to order takeout, but you don't become a professional cook this way.
That's ok when you already understand programming and can guide the codegen and step in to correct when it generates bullshit. But you don't get to that level without learning programming yourself. Education is built from the ground up towards higher and higher levels of abstraction. You don't get to skip learning arithmetic on your way to learning quantum physics, just because numpy will do all your arithmetic once you get there. In other words, it's ok for people who don't like cooking to order takeout, but you don't become a professional cook this way.
>Education is built from the ground up towards higher and higher levels of abstraction.
How many people who write SW professionally worldwide, know everything about the OS underneath, the sys-calls, disassembly, memory allocation, CPU architecture, network layers, internet routing, cloud and virtualization, etc?
Most SW jobs are just routine plumbing, connecting one FOSS pipe to another in whatever way works for you, till you get the desired result which often is unoptimized slop but if it serves the business use case and makes money nobody but the cool-aid drinking stickler developers care that it's slop. It's not rocket science that requires you to know assembly or CPU architectures or linear algebra and optimize ever single bit to perfection, but low cost and time to market is more important.
You can try to educate people about everything but not all jobs are gonna require you to know everything. In fact, jobs are being more and more specialized where you'll have one HW expert, one networking expert, one compiler expert, one typescript expert, one GoLang expert etc.
How many people who write SW professionally worldwide, know everything about the OS underneath, the sys-calls, disassembly, memory allocation, CPU architecture, network layers, internet routing, cloud and virtualization, etc?
Most SW jobs are just routine plumbing, connecting one FOSS pipe to another in whatever way works for you, till you get the desired result which often is unoptimized slop but if it serves the business use case and makes money nobody but the cool-aid drinking stickler developers care that it's slop. It's not rocket science that requires you to know assembly or CPU architectures or linear algebra and optimize ever single bit to perfection, but low cost and time to market is more important.
You can try to educate people about everything but not all jobs are gonna require you to know everything. In fact, jobs are being more and more specialized where you'll have one HW expert, one networking expert, one compiler expert, one typescript expert, one GoLang expert etc.
LLMs are narrative machines, not analysis machines.
The article isn’t about code, and on HN we default to that all the time.
The article isn’t about code, and on HN we default to that all the time.
> but increasingly we want them to think for us
Which is understandable. All societies are constrained by lack of experts / intelligence. Think about how relatively inaccessible healthcare is, even in rich countries.
Which is understandable. All societies are constrained by lack of experts / intelligence. Think about how relatively inaccessible healthcare is, even in rich countries.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, they got batteries for greater mobility and are now more like e-bikes for the mind.
E-bikes are actually better for you than not cycling at all (you still need to push the pedals with a pedelec, and altho that's less strenuous than a non-electric bike it's more than most other forms of transit people otherwise use): https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/the-health-benefits-of-e...
Worse, some professors encourage this!
I had a data structures professor (over a year ago now) that actively encouraged a class of sophomores - most of whom were fresh out of "intro to Java" - to have Copilot (GPT-4 at the time I believe) help churn out assignment code on the university's dime.
Being somewhat ahead and an avowed LLM hater, I mostly forgot about this and plowed through the assignments unassisted... until the first midterm (on paper, in person) hit. The mean was something like a 40.
I eventually spoke to some classmates that weren't in my immediate group, and predictably heard several variations on "I let Copilot become a crutch."
Ugh. Fortunately there was ample opportunity to turn grades around, but I'm sure some people are still feeling that bad advice in their GPAs.
I had a data structures professor (over a year ago now) that actively encouraged a class of sophomores - most of whom were fresh out of "intro to Java" - to have Copilot (GPT-4 at the time I believe) help churn out assignment code on the university's dime.
Being somewhat ahead and an avowed LLM hater, I mostly forgot about this and plowed through the assignments unassisted... until the first midterm (on paper, in person) hit. The mean was something like a 40.
I eventually spoke to some classmates that weren't in my immediate group, and predictably heard several variations on "I let Copilot become a crutch."
Ugh. Fortunately there was ample opportunity to turn grades around, but I'm sure some people are still feeling that bad advice in their GPAs.
> There is a generation of completely unemployable "graduates" in the pipeline.
A friend who's a high-school teacher says all the students want to be software engineers, so there's also a glut of them coming...
A friend who's a high-school teacher says all the students want to be software engineers, so there's also a glut of them coming...
Did anyone tell them about the current market for SW developers? :o
I've completed a Master's course in CS and some students came from other technical studies, like applied mathematics and physics. Of course after only 2 years they did not learn any particular programming language well, but they learned other skills related to CS, performed experiments in very narrow fields.
This kind of ruins the bogus startup founder narrative of disruption being an unconditionally positive thing.
[deleted]
This is a fun article because while it discusses a real issue, it has just enough outdated views to distract people from the main point and focus on those.
Having recently finished studies and still being in contact with teaching assistants today, the problem is big. Attendance going down, participation going down, courses and curriculum simplified. I already noticed a big shift after Covid and I'm glad I missed the ChatGPT era.
Part of this problem is also because courses have (in my experience) rarely rewarded actual knowledge or understanding. In our efforts to standardise everything and come to objective exams, we've rewarded a culture that just intends to pass with the least amount of effort. Next to that are the burdens of being a student; if I didn't have to work most nights of the week, I'm sure I'd have put more effort into studying.
Lectures were often boring and questions would be answered by referring to pages in a textbook. Maybe with recorded media, we should revisit the use of lectures.
All in all, I don't see how academia can keep the standards high in current society. We'll see how it goes.
Having recently finished studies and still being in contact with teaching assistants today, the problem is big. Attendance going down, participation going down, courses and curriculum simplified. I already noticed a big shift after Covid and I'm glad I missed the ChatGPT era.
Part of this problem is also because courses have (in my experience) rarely rewarded actual knowledge or understanding. In our efforts to standardise everything and come to objective exams, we've rewarded a culture that just intends to pass with the least amount of effort. Next to that are the burdens of being a student; if I didn't have to work most nights of the week, I'm sure I'd have put more effort into studying.
Lectures were often boring and questions would be answered by referring to pages in a textbook. Maybe with recorded media, we should revisit the use of lectures.
All in all, I don't see how academia can keep the standards high in current society. We'll see how it goes.
Perhaps it has to do with the reason people go to university, and the pressures they're under.
I remember being a poor student burning through my savings. I had no patience for humanities and anything that didn't directly help me get gainful employment.
Years later, I love those things, mostly because I am free to pursue them at my own pace, without worrying about maintaining a high GPA, courting companies that offer internships, building up my portfolio, and learning the things that are actually related to my job. That's on top of working my way through school, trying to make friends in a new city, and pursuing happiness.
I suspect that a lot of people are in the same situation, cutting corners to make ends meet and remember their early twenties as more than endless work and drudgery.
I remember being a poor student burning through my savings. I had no patience for humanities and anything that didn't directly help me get gainful employment.
Years later, I love those things, mostly because I am free to pursue them at my own pace, without worrying about maintaining a high GPA, courting companies that offer internships, building up my portfolio, and learning the things that are actually related to my job. That's on top of working my way through school, trying to make friends in a new city, and pursuing happiness.
I suspect that a lot of people are in the same situation, cutting corners to make ends meet and remember their early twenties as more than endless work and drudgery.
Agreed. Having time and a mental health status where one can relax and peacefully read a whole book is a luxury. Having a job where you can apply any knowledge from your studies is a luxury too. Having space in your life to care about knowledge and learning for its own sake is a luxury
I didn't enjoy my studies because it was so stressful and i had to optimise for exams. I had no choice but to cut corners where i could. I was also forced to do many classes that i didnt really care about.
Though i have the feeling i can't begin to imagine the life of these people that are addicted to their phone, they kind of feel like a different species to me
I didn't enjoy my studies because it was so stressful and i had to optimise for exams. I had no choice but to cut corners where i could. I was also forced to do many classes that i didnt really care about.
Though i have the feeling i can't begin to imagine the life of these people that are addicted to their phone, they kind of feel like a different species to me
In the university I optimized for exam. The degree was the only thing that mattered. Like you now that I’m older and wealthier I can lean for learning sake at my pleasure and deep dive things I care about.
For me it was extracting the most value for the money, which meant getting the best possible education within the boundaries of the degree. This involved taking graduate courses and substituting them for undergrad to get more of a challenge, taking more math courses both undergrad and graduate (I was a CS major), etc. Yes ultimately I was paying for a piece of paper, but when you're paying $15k/yr I wanted to be damn sure it was money well spent, and to this day I still feel shortchanged.
I felt shortchanged my senior year at my fairly well-regarded university when I was dealing with depression and doing what I saw as the bare minimum academically. I still got straight A’s despite putting in minimal effort.
> I suspect that a lot of people are in the same situation, cutting corners to make ends meet and remember their early twenties as more than endless work and drudgery.
This was definitely the case for me.
However, it always left me with the idea of “then why did I study?”. To get a job, of course, but in retrospect a better path might’ve been to work and then study at a later phase in life.
This was definitely the case for me.
However, it always left me with the idea of “then why did I study?”. To get a job, of course, but in retrospect a better path might’ve been to work and then study at a later phase in life.
Good points, but the other part of this is that back in "our time" (we may not be the same age - I was in University 1999-2005, but regardless) there was...basically no other choice.
If you wanted to work in CS, you had to get a degree. Then you'd get a shitty entry level job. Then eventually after a couple of years you'd be an "intermediate" engineer, have a good enough salary to live on your own (that's right - up until this point, you probably still needed to have roommates, if you are in a major city), take vacations, start putting in for retirement, etc.
Maybe if you were in Silicon Valley and already saw the dot com boom you saw another path. But most of the world didn't think like that.
Over the last several years you instead saw people go into CS thinking their first job will be 150k/year from a big tech, they'll be a senior within 3 years, and start working on their FIRE plan. And meanwhile they're surrounded by friends and peers who are either influencers, content creators, or have startup exit stories from the ZIRP era.
You and I remember endless work and drudgery. Those in our shoes today instead feel constant anxiety like they're already behind, they're not good enough, like maybe they missed their chance in the gold rush, and the only solution is to hurry up and dig faster.
I feel like that's another reason for the increasing # of shortcuts people are taking with their education.
If you wanted to work in CS, you had to get a degree. Then you'd get a shitty entry level job. Then eventually after a couple of years you'd be an "intermediate" engineer, have a good enough salary to live on your own (that's right - up until this point, you probably still needed to have roommates, if you are in a major city), take vacations, start putting in for retirement, etc.
Maybe if you were in Silicon Valley and already saw the dot com boom you saw another path. But most of the world didn't think like that.
Over the last several years you instead saw people go into CS thinking their first job will be 150k/year from a big tech, they'll be a senior within 3 years, and start working on their FIRE plan. And meanwhile they're surrounded by friends and peers who are either influencers, content creators, or have startup exit stories from the ZIRP era.
You and I remember endless work and drudgery. Those in our shoes today instead feel constant anxiety like they're already behind, they're not good enough, like maybe they missed their chance in the gold rush, and the only solution is to hurry up and dig faster.
I feel like that's another reason for the increasing # of shortcuts people are taking with their education.
> Part of this problem is also because courses have (in my experience) rarely rewarded actual knowledge or understanding
It doesn't matter. There is literally no assignment you can give students that they won't cheat on. In an intro college astronomy class, "Look at these pictures of planets, what do think is interesting about them?" or "Walk around your house and look at the different types of light bulbs, what kinds do you have?" Both of these will include 20% ChatGPT responses.
It doesn't matter. There is literally no assignment you can give students that they won't cheat on. In an intro college astronomy class, "Look at these pictures of planets, what do think is interesting about them?" or "Walk around your house and look at the different types of light bulbs, what kinds do you have?" Both of these will include 20% ChatGPT responses.
For a take-home exam or assignment, I’m sure this is the case.
The hardest course I took at uni had a final oral exam and weekly homework assignment. Your final grade would be the average of all the homework assignments, but the final oral exam decided if you passed (with previous mentioned grade) or failed.
I thought that was a great way to do it, you can cheat your way through the course but in the end you’ll fail the oral exam. However, it was more subjective.
The hardest course I took at uni had a final oral exam and weekly homework assignment. Your final grade would be the average of all the homework assignments, but the final oral exam decided if you passed (with previous mentioned grade) or failed.
I thought that was a great way to do it, you can cheat your way through the course but in the end you’ll fail the oral exam. However, it was more subjective.
As someone who teaches in humanities many students are really bad at reading and writing, use ai way too much and it hurts them, and rarely pay attention in class.
I’ve sat in other classes which were indeed boring but I don’t think this is the common denominator. Undergrads are just high schoolers with a different title.
The students from our schools foreign branch that come here for a semester or so are leagues beyond local students.
I’ve sat in other classes which were indeed boring but I don’t think this is the common denominator. Undergrads are just high schoolers with a different title.
The students from our schools foreign branch that come here for a semester or so are leagues beyond local students.
Agreed when the metric becomes the goal, it stops being a useful metric. College attendance seems to fall in that bucket.
>it has just enough outdated views to distract people
Haha, yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It's great this guy wrote a textbook, but perhaps he should have authored a series of documentaries.
Perhaps reading dense texts isn't actually the best way to make an impression on a students mind, but that's just all we had up until about 20 years ago.
I think Khan Academy is really great because of the video content.
Haha, yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It's great this guy wrote a textbook, but perhaps he should have authored a series of documentaries.
Perhaps reading dense texts isn't actually the best way to make an impression on a students mind, but that's just all we had up until about 20 years ago.
I think Khan Academy is really great because of the video content.
US school teaches how to be good at cheating.
I can’t tell you how many professors I’ve had this exact conversation with.
It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.
A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.
It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.
A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it'd be that bad for schools to be almost completely analog. Obviously not for classes like CS, but do math class es or English classes really need computers? The whole "digital learning" push feels like it hasn't resulted in significantly better learning than with a book, pen, and paper.
Totally agree. Unless the use of the computer is integral to the material at hand (learning to program, learning to solve problems numerically, modeling) it is superfluous. Tons of dough spent on making it "modern" just for the sake of it.
> Obviously not for classes like CS
Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
CS at the lower levels should be programming and playing with computers. What else should it be? Analysis of algorithms? That sounds dreadfully boring for a high schooler
We started with algorithm analysis freshman year CS, in the early 90s. It’s not too difficult for simple algorithms like bubble sort
Exams we would have to write code, or predict the results of code or spot bugs
My teacher was a bit of a dick and would sometimes intentionally leave out a brace. Therefore “does not compile” was sometimes a valid answer :-)
Exams we would have to write code, or predict the results of code or spot bugs
My teacher was a bit of a dick and would sometimes intentionally leave out a brace. Therefore “does not compile” was sometimes a valid answer :-)
As a senior in high school, I have wanted the latter for most of my time here. I can program and fool around with computers on my own time (and more efficiently than in class). After taking (and being bored in) AP CS A freshman year, I have just dedicated more time to high level math classes instead.
I took AP CS freshman year (30+ years ago), spent the rest of high school learning UNIX, becoming a sysadmin, putzing around with computers. I did spend a summer taking the Berkeley course teaching SICP, but I regret it. I recommend saving that for when you’re a freshman. There will be plenty of time for the theory.
Bulking up on math in HS is smart. I took AP Calculus and then went to community college to take more calculus.
Bulking up on math in HS is smart. I took AP Calculus and then went to community college to take more calculus.
Yeah, I ended up spending a lot of time messing around with Linux, etc. Then I got bitten by the hardware bug and am off to school for EE instead.
High School CS was programming in Java 25% and 75% algorithms when I went to school.
Pretty much. We had one lab period and couple of classroom periods in a week. We even wrote java on notebooks! Can't imagine writing java without IDE autocomplete these days, but "back then"(it was just 7 years ago) I was banging out JOptionPanes and JButton event handlers for a selection sort frontend with pen and paper perfect syntax, all the options memorized. Of course, the salary calculator as well (you enter the different components, it subtracts tax and tells you the answer - obviously a simplistic version)
So except for playing with computers class then school should be mostly analog?
Yeah, I do think that kids would get a ton out of hands-on analog classes where they learn logic, problem solving, etc.
Yeah, I do think that kids would get a ton out of hands-on analog classes where they learn logic, problem solving, etc.
Yep! Like how except for gym class, school should be mostly in classrooms
It's fiction, but the NEAL Stephenson novel Anathem explored this idea.
It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices. If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. We need to explain (and frequently reinforce) these negative effects of modern phone use so kids can grow up understanding them. Right now, it seems like a lot of people really only start to understand the impacts of this kind of phone use long after they're addicted. Hopefully informing them before that happens would help.
Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead.
The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.
Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead.
The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.
"We need to explain..."
From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.
From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.
> outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit
I think it should be fine to outright ban them in certain contexts, like classroom learning; just as they are outright banned (usually) in theaters or playhouses or places of worship.
And to cite your example, even in the most liberal jurisdictions I think it's not acceptable for students to take drugs in the classroom. Phones are basically the same thing.
I think it should be fine to outright ban them in certain contexts, like classroom learning; just as they are outright banned (usually) in theaters or playhouses or places of worship.
And to cite your example, even in the most liberal jurisdictions I think it's not acceptable for students to take drugs in the classroom. Phones are basically the same thing.
Oop, I totally missed the "during the school day" part of the grandparent comment. I totally agree with banning them during the school day. My argument was against the point that the grandparent wasn't making which was banning phones from K-12 students both during and after the school day
> If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit.
They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them?
Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition?
Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal?
Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh?
I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.
They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them?
Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition?
Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal?
Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh?
I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.
OP didn't say ban. They said restrict. Moderation is what's needed here.
> A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.
Is what I was responding to in the grandparent of your comment
Is what I was responding to in the grandparent of your comment
“Banning” during a specific time at a specific location is not really a “ban”. It is a restriction.
Oh I just realized I missed the "during the school day" part of the comment I cited. That's totally my mistake. For what it's worth, I agree with banning during the school day but (although no one is making the point here) I would disagree with banning them from children everywhere always.
What is really needed is parents that teach their kids impulse control and how to prioritize, to know what is extracurricular and what is not. You can play video games, smoke weed, do whatever on your phone once your work is done, not before or during.
As a society we need to help parents to achieve that. It’s not helpful to just blame parents.
> It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices ... banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit.
How many 10 years old smoke weed, have sex, and drink alcohol ?
10 years old spending hours per days on their phone on the other hand...
How many 10 years old smoke weed, have sex, and drink alcohol ?
10 years old spending hours per days on their phone on the other hand...
We did this with our kids, now college freshman and high school junior, and it was absolutely worth it. In middle school we established "screen break" from Friday night to Saturday afternoon. It was challenging at first but they came to love it. We've had many conversations and read many books on those breaks (and still do). Advice to new parents: keep them off screens as long as possible, and then build in and enforce breaks that become a part of your family routine. Chances are they will end up noticeably different from other kids.
It seems some are. My kid is in 4th grade in a city public school (US) and the district just this year banned all phones, tablets, and smart watches during the school day. We’ll see how it goes.
Are laptops also banned?
No. Not sure what the expectations are for HS kids who use their laptops for classwork.
ACT Australia did K-10 starting 2024. It's been great!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
Yeah. I was coming here to state this. It is working.
It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere.
Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.
It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere.
Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.
This is the ONE THING I wish I had done with my kids. They are both pretty good but the phones did absolutely nothing good for them.
For what goal? Just for them to get instantly addicted once the ban is lifted? For them to lack any communications with their friends and to be excluded from their social circles discussing the newest tiktoks or whatever?
I think you chose well
I think you chose well
To the end of reducing exposure during developmental periods, with the aim of having a long term benefit.
Yeah that's fair.
I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.
I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.
First, lack of a phone won't cause them to be completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with. Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing. Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
> completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with.
I believe you underestimate the power of being "in". Even if the friends wouldn't be "true", it is still extremely valuable socially. That is, speaking as someone who, due to unrelated reasons, was prevented from fitting in fully. It may not hold much water from a stranger on the internet, but i would've given anything to be able to fit in more at that time. I believe it has set me back socially 3-5 years, with lasting consequences which I may never truly heal.
> Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing
Sure, but they won't learn that when you prevent them from participating activities with their friends. This isn't them deciding that they don't want to participate in something.
> Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
Attention spans can be fixed.
And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that. You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will. And the damage done by controlling their life like that is more lasting. Their relationship with authority, with you, with their own autonomy will be forever changed. (Speaking as figurative you, I don't mean to imply you specifically) This teaches them "You don't have a right to own things the authority doesn't want you to own" (Or it teaches them how to lie and hide contraband.)
I believe you underestimate the power of being "in". Even if the friends wouldn't be "true", it is still extremely valuable socially. That is, speaking as someone who, due to unrelated reasons, was prevented from fitting in fully. It may not hold much water from a stranger on the internet, but i would've given anything to be able to fit in more at that time. I believe it has set me back socially 3-5 years, with lasting consequences which I may never truly heal.
> Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing
Sure, but they won't learn that when you prevent them from participating activities with their friends. This isn't them deciding that they don't want to participate in something.
> Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
Attention spans can be fixed.
And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that. You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will. And the damage done by controlling their life like that is more lasting. Their relationship with authority, with you, with their own autonomy will be forever changed. (Speaking as figurative you, I don't mean to imply you specifically) This teaches them "You don't have a right to own things the authority doesn't want you to own" (Or it teaches them how to lie and hide contraband.)
> And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that.
Every parent exercises some form of control over their child. (Cookie before dinner? No, sorry.) Children need to learn boundaries and it's up to the parents to set those boundaries. It's basic parenting, and isn't as nefarious as you're making it out to be.
> You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will.
In my experience this is untrue. I grew up when TV was the primary medium of household entertainment, and yet I was the sole child in my class, and probably my whole school, to not have at TV at home (a deliberate choice on my parents' part). Now that I'm grown up, I'm thankful for it.
Every parent exercises some form of control over their child. (Cookie before dinner? No, sorry.) Children need to learn boundaries and it's up to the parents to set those boundaries. It's basic parenting, and isn't as nefarious as you're making it out to be.
> You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will.
In my experience this is untrue. I grew up when TV was the primary medium of household entertainment, and yet I was the sole child in my class, and probably my whole school, to not have at TV at home (a deliberate choice on my parents' part). Now that I'm grown up, I'm thankful for it.
Somehow kids were able to make friendships before everyone was online all the time. Perhaps they don't need to be spending time discussing the newest tiktoks. Maybe their friends should be hanging out and doing things.
As the parent of a young kid: how do you do this? Does this just mean not giving them a smartphone until they’re teenagers? Not letting them take it to school. My oldest kid isn’t even four yet, but I’m already wondering about how to limit his eventual phone usage and also not make him a social pariah.
It should be enforced by the schools: put the phones in a tub in home group and hand them back out at the end of the day. If there’s an emergency call the office or the office calls you. Use exercise books for note taking, etc.
The "social pariah" thing is FUD. It's just people repeating what other people claim to be afraid of, and then becoming afraid of it themselves. Kids can be shitty--if they want to exclude someone or bully them, they're going to do it whether or not the victim has a cell phone. Conversely, if people will only be friends with you if you have a cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They're probably not genuine friends.
You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone.
In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.
I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.
I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
Being banned from all forms of broadcast pop culture is a completely different thing than having limited access to phones and social media.
Lead by example, and show there is much fun to be had away from phones etc.
I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in.
I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.
I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in.
I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.
Tiktoking in the bathroom will be the new smoking in the bathroom.
No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere.
It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"
It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.
There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"
It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.
There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
If we can all agree that cannabis is bad for the still-developing mind, and can generally get on board with the idea that kids should be kept as far away from it as possible, because it's addicting, because it causes long-term alterations to brain development, because it diminishes motivation and hijacks executive functioning networks, why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?
I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
> why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?
I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.
> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.
I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.
> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.
Sorry if my post was unclear, when I say "platforms", I am talking about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, open-ended MMORPG's, etc - I agree that the problem is the addiction-optimized psychological experiments, not the operating system or device itself.
Yes!!! That's why I would ban just the "addiction-optimized psychological experiments".
I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.
I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.
Because phone is just a box of wires, without apps it's inert.
It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.
It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.
Sure - to be clear, I am not suggesting banning technology itself. Computers and the internet were also a boon of joy and discovery for me. I self-started programming in TI-basic back in middle school because "computer science" classes that covered anything beyond typing and "here's how to use to a web browser, here's how to use a text editor" skills weren't available until high school for me. I have vivid and fond memories of learning visual basic and making my own GUI apps after this, before eventually starting to learn javascript, python, and "real" programming languages like C.
None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.
I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.
None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.
I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.
> I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole.
Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.
> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.
> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,
Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting
Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.
> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.
> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,
Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting
No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits.
Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
> There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.
I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.
I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.
I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.
I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
> I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV.
Yeah that's fair.
> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").
Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.
Yeah that's fair.
> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").
Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.
> And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality.
Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.
Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.
Sure, but the natural consequence is that they will be more inclined to distrust society, authority, and vote for anti-estabishment populist parties.
To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.
To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.
I don't buy arguments from parents about why they can't just take away their kids' phones, or simply decline to buy them a phone in the first place.
My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.
At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.
My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.
At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.
You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.
I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm
People will still easily find ways to become addicted to content streams, regardless of the algorithm. The algorithms just make it that much worse.
Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?
I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.
We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.
I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.
We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.
> Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?
Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
> Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.
Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.
To be fair, belts and phones aren’t the same things. Belts are popular now because wearing them is barely an inconvenience compared to the improvement in safety - abstaining from phones is way harder for the average person.
You'll also have to ban all the addictive games.
To be honest I would, if only to be consistent with the above policy.
You’d have to ban websites with algorithmic feeds as well, like this very site we’re on.
Fair. I suppose a "highest upvote" kind of feed would also be acceptable - so we don't kill reddit or hacker news
Reddit and HN can be very addictive, and Instagram and YouTube and TikTok with mere “highest upvote” per topic would still be. I’m doubtful that your strategy would do very much about the problem.
I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.
I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.
It's not acceptable. Being able to read only the upvoted messages warp our perception of the average. Chronological is better.
Even on something as anonymous as 4chan where all comments are posted in chrono order I see a difference in behavior after they added direct links to comments so one could easily see how many reactions your comment got as opposed to actually reading every comment.
I've no clue why people have downvoted this; you're right as rain. A phone is nothing short of a digital slot machine and shouldn't be put in front of adults or children. These algorithms are designed for profit, not humanity. They have far greater control over us than they should.
The funny thing is, they don't even have control. They can't push propaganda. They can just accelerate human desire. Through all the brain rot they have created, they didn't even gain anything significant, just a few % bump in "kEy pErFormAnce iNdiCatoRs".
And they doomed a generation in the process
And they doomed a generation in the process
Capitalism is a system that rewards the selfish and greedy. If you don't pursue every bump in key performance indicators you can, then someone else will and they'll eat your lunch.
Agreed, the problem is capitalism /s
But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)
(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance
But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)
(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance
Including Hacker News, presumably.
This is a really good take. My mother did this until high school and some of my favorite classes forced this. Lectures were so much more engaging with no computer distracting me.
> It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.
Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.
Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.
Smartphones are easy to blame, but they aren't the core of the problem. They're not just a thing used in the US, but across the world and we don't see the same problems in say, European school systems. The actual issue is multifaceted:
1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids.
2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum.
3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect.
These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.
1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids.
2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum.
3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect.
These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.
Parenting and upbringing could be an important and overlooked reason for this lost generation.
I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore.
The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had.
People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself.
A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included.
You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...
I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore.
The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had.
People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself.
A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included.
You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...
Hold on. I thought no phones K-12 all day was normal?
That only works if all their friends follow the same rule at home. Send your kids to a Waldorf school and thank me later.
In a European public university ~10 years ago, I did a class in discrete mathematics in my first year as a student and it was hard. The professor was going fast, not following any book or notes but writing everything on the blackboard. During that hour I needed to pay constant attention to the lesson, take notes, going home to find explanations in books or online about what I didn't understand. At the exam, there was a quick pre-test to filter out some of the students. I think there were maybe around 150 students if not more, that tried and only 30 that went to the final exam. I was one of them and passed it with a good mark. It was my first exam in my first year, and I still remember it to be enjoyable because I appreciated the hard work required.
Two years later, I heard that some students didn't pass the exam and wrote a letter to the faculty director, demanding an easy way. The professor was replaced with another one and they passed the class.
Even in reputable public universities, professors have to adjust their teaching to make sure enough students are satisfied with their facutly choice so they can continue receiving government funding.
Two years later, I heard that some students didn't pass the exam and wrote a letter to the faculty director, demanding an easy way. The professor was replaced with another one and they passed the class.
Even in reputable public universities, professors have to adjust their teaching to make sure enough students are satisfied with their facutly choice so they can continue receiving government funding.
I dunno, when only 20% of the students are even able to take the test I'm pretty inclined to put that one squarely on the teacher.
It depends on the model, some universities are easy to get in but have weed-out classes, some are hard to get in but comparatively easy to finish, and some are both hard to get in and hard to finish.
Discrete maths back in my days was one of those almost universal weed-out classes which got rid of people with limited abstract thinking ability who weren't willing or able to get over that with hard work. Very heavy correlation between how well you did in that class and core CS subjects.
Discrete maths back in my days was one of those almost universal weed-out classes which got rid of people with limited abstract thinking ability who weren't willing or able to get over that with hard work. Very heavy correlation between how well you did in that class and core CS subjects.
[deleted]
That the university replaced the teacher suggests that's not how the university viewed things.
In my EU country, lots of first year students are kind of lost and are picking their major more or less at random (or very unprepared). Very low passing rates in first year are very common. It gets better in 3rd year and after.
Or as I've heard - in USA entrance is the hard part; in EU staying afloat during the first year is the hard part.
I certainly remember my first year being the hardest in term of rigour, and the others being more pleasant (still hard, though)
I certainly remember my first year being the hardest in term of rigour, and the others being more pleasant (still hard, though)
You suffer from survivor bias. There are better ways to make courses harder than not having any notes.
80% of students failing the exam is the fault of the teacher or fault of university for having admitted unprepared students.
80% of students failing the exam is the fault of the teacher or fault of university for having admitted unprepared students.
Unfortunately, my uni was free admission, so the first year helps filter out unprepared students.
I might suffer from a bias, but what I did was study to pass the test. I don't expect everyone to pass every exam as I don't expect everyone to get a degree. Universities need to be hard if they want to keep their reputation and not be outlived by online courses on YouTube. A degree, more than a certificate that the student attended some classes, should prove that a person is capable of thinking, studying and doing hard work.
I might suffer from a bias, but what I did was study to pass the test. I don't expect everyone to pass every exam as I don't expect everyone to get a degree. Universities need to be hard if they want to keep their reputation and not be outlived by online courses on YouTube. A degree, more than a certificate that the student attended some classes, should prove that a person is capable of thinking, studying and doing hard work.
What is he goal of teaching?
Is it to filter out ppl that cannot do well with the teaching style of the teacher or is to transfer a skill and knowledge into the student?
Is it to filter out ppl that cannot do well with the teaching style of the teacher or is to transfer a skill and knowledge into the student?
> In a European public university ~10 years ago, I did a class in discrete mathematics in my first year as a student and it was hard. The professor was going fast, not following any book or notes but writing everything on the blackboard. During that hour I needed to pay constant attention to the lesson, take notes, going home to find explanations in books or online about what I didn't understand.
This has always been my pet peeve. My classes were mostly like this. I like to think and dig into topics and instead of doing that, there was regurgitation without any pause. Whoever could write fast and have breathing space to think won. I wish they had given out the notes upfront, use a portion of the class to go through the overall thing and then use the rest for getting into the tougher parts/Q&A.
This has always been my pet peeve. My classes were mostly like this. I like to think and dig into topics and instead of doing that, there was regurgitation without any pause. Whoever could write fast and have breathing space to think won. I wish they had given out the notes upfront, use a portion of the class to go through the overall thing and then use the rest for getting into the tougher parts/Q&A.
Inequality has also changed over the last 40 years .. students have to hustle gig-economy jobs just to get by, and incur substantial debt to study.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads...
Certainly there is no time to read widely or sit around thinking or chatting with people who challenge our views .. no time to hang around campus and engage in conversation.
Gary of Garys Economics YT channel makes the point that inequality - in and of itself - robs the middle class of wealth :
Essentially he argues that the fraction of dollars allocated to the middle class is less, and the total amount of dollars is used to apportion 'real' wealth - ie. the total number of atoms, people, energy supply, houses, land, paintings does not go up in proportion, so the same dollar amount will buy less realworld goods.
Science and Technology - universities and startups - require an abundant over-apportionment of capital to make sure that we cast a large net in order to reach those rare talents that make significant advances.
The side effect of wasted funding - students who learn/research stuff they wont use in jobs, and startups that fail to find PMF and scale fast .. is a well educated, better society in which to live.
Relatively low inequality and high progressive tax post-WWII funded the new medicine and tech we now enjoy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads...
Certainly there is no time to read widely or sit around thinking or chatting with people who challenge our views .. no time to hang around campus and engage in conversation.
Gary of Garys Economics YT channel makes the point that inequality - in and of itself - robs the middle class of wealth :
Essentially he argues that the fraction of dollars allocated to the middle class is less, and the total amount of dollars is used to apportion 'real' wealth - ie. the total number of atoms, people, energy supply, houses, land, paintings does not go up in proportion, so the same dollar amount will buy less realworld goods.
Science and Technology - universities and startups - require an abundant over-apportionment of capital to make sure that we cast a large net in order to reach those rare talents that make significant advances.
The side effect of wasted funding - students who learn/research stuff they wont use in jobs, and startups that fail to find PMF and scale fast .. is a well educated, better society in which to live.
Relatively low inequality and high progressive tax post-WWII funded the new medicine and tech we now enjoy.
You have stated no facts.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/labor-force-participation-...
The demographic across the board works less today than in the past. They might accrue debt, but they're not working it off while at college.
Further, you're even more wrong than you think you are.
The average student at college is now painfully average. This is because the average student is admitted to college at rates higher than ever before.
College participation rate is higher than in the past as well.
> Relatively low inequality and high progressive tax post-WWII funded the new medicine and tech we now enjoy.
You're not even correct about the taxes either. The taxes were TIED to the war.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/labor-force-participation-...
The demographic across the board works less today than in the past. They might accrue debt, but they're not working it off while at college.
Further, you're even more wrong than you think you are.
The average student at college is now painfully average. This is because the average student is admitted to college at rates higher than ever before.
College participation rate is higher than in the past as well.
> Relatively low inequality and high progressive tax post-WWII funded the new medicine and tech we now enjoy.
You're not even correct about the taxes either. The taxes were TIED to the war.
The top marginal tax rate was 91% from 1945-1963. It was still 70% up until 1981.
What was the effective tax rate?
"While average effective tax rates barely changed in the US from 1945 to 2015, the average tax rates of high-income households fell sharply—from about 50 percent to 25 percent for the highest income 0.01 percent and from about 40 percent to about 25 percent for the top 1 percent."
https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...
https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...
For the top 1% and 0.01% the effective tax has been halved from ~50% to ~25%, which is perhaps not very surprising.
It's a Western problem. In China students work very hard because they had to beat a tough competion to even be able to attend the University. And they know that finishing the University with good grades will mean a difference between a good life and a hard one. In South Korea it's the same.
So, IMO, standards should be kept very high. There is no need that all people finish the University. There are plenty of jobs that can be done without attending an University. But the problem is that even for those jobs there's a degree of competence required and some willing to work. And there are people who fail at low qualification jobs. Solution? Bring some competition. Hire only well prepared people.
So, IMO, standards should be kept very high. There is no need that all people finish the University. There are plenty of jobs that can be done without attending an University. But the problem is that even for those jobs there's a degree of competence required and some willing to work. And there are people who fail at low qualification jobs. Solution? Bring some competition. Hire only well prepared people.
I'm going to say something really out of pocket about the average American student, so forgive me.
Americans aren't used to having to compete. When they lose (and especially when they lose to foreigners) they get extremely resentful and behave as if something has been taken from them.
I think a large part of it is an entitlement issue that's pretty common in our culture. But there are also cultural undercurrents from resentful Americans who failed to get ahead in life that actively denigrate the concept of education and the educated.
Americans aren't used to having to compete. When they lose (and especially when they lose to foreigners) they get extremely resentful and behave as if something has been taken from them.
I think a large part of it is an entitlement issue that's pretty common in our culture. But there are also cultural undercurrents from resentful Americans who failed to get ahead in life that actively denigrate the concept of education and the educated.
>When they lose (and especially when they lose to foreigners) they get extremely resentful and behave as if something has been taken from them.
I you even know how often I've heard students complain about "having my A taken away from me". It's insane, but it's also what to expect from a society just like you described who has been told that the point of school is to get good grades.
Now, a lot of students here are discovering that minmaxing to get a high GPA in a degree like compsci lands them firmly in jobless land if they failed to use those 4 years in an environment of learning to actually learn things. Doesn't even have to be from courses, things like student groups and competitions, research opportunities, etc.
Employers don't really want people whose sole interest is to do nothing and be rewarded for it.
I you even know how often I've heard students complain about "having my A taken away from me". It's insane, but it's also what to expect from a society just like you described who has been told that the point of school is to get good grades.
Now, a lot of students here are discovering that minmaxing to get a high GPA in a degree like compsci lands them firmly in jobless land if they failed to use those 4 years in an environment of learning to actually learn things. Doesn't even have to be from courses, things like student groups and competitions, research opportunities, etc.
Employers don't really want people whose sole interest is to do nothing and be rewarded for it.
Maybe I’m biased because I grew up in a family where my dad at one point was a musician and my siblings and I all pursued competitive careers at one point in our lives (academia, acting, business, music, sports), but I don’t know if Americans in general are averse to competition. In fact, I’d say Americans love competition. Americans generally love sports, for example.
I do agree, though, that we Americans could do a better job at handling losing, and we also have a problem with people and institutions that want to win at any cost, violating mores and laws when they are impediments to “winning.”
I do agree, though, that we Americans could do a better job at handling losing, and we also have a problem with people and institutions that want to win at any cost, violating mores and laws when they are impediments to “winning.”
>Americans generally love sports
That’s funny, since I think your sports leagues are the best example of fake competitiveness. Every major sports operates a closed league.
The greatest basketball talent ever from my country is playing for a team that’s tanking (see? it even has a word), which for those who don’t know is the act of purposefully losing games to be able to get better draft picks. Because of a closed league, the players and staff are not really punished for bad performance.
The reason for this (besides the obvious financial reasons) is the idea of losing completely. In football leagues around thw world, historical giants have faded away to irrelevancy due to bad performances year after year or mismanagement (for which there are rules for to have fewer incidents).
Fundamentally though the sports system is more enertainment than pure competition.
That’s funny, since I think your sports leagues are the best example of fake competitiveness. Every major sports operates a closed league.
The greatest basketball talent ever from my country is playing for a team that’s tanking (see? it even has a word), which for those who don’t know is the act of purposefully losing games to be able to get better draft picks. Because of a closed league, the players and staff are not really punished for bad performance.
The reason for this (besides the obvious financial reasons) is the idea of losing completely. In football leagues around thw world, historical giants have faded away to irrelevancy due to bad performances year after year or mismanagement (for which there are rules for to have fewer incidents).
Fundamentally though the sports system is more enertainment than pure competition.
> Americans generally love sports
Americans spend more time watching sports more than exercising themselves:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/activity-leisur...
https://time2play.com/blog/americas-sports-watching-habits/
https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/study-1-in-4-americans-watc...
Americans spend more time watching sports more than exercising themselves:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/activity-leisur...
https://time2play.com/blog/americas-sports-watching-habits/
https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/study-1-in-4-americans-watc...
The only way to keep standards high is to cease using degrees solely as class indicators and stop requiring a bachelor's degree for the overwhelming majority of white collar jobs (that we all know don't need the specific knowledge from the degree or else the required degree would be more specific, and that we also know the degree doesn't indicate work ethic necessarily, go look at the people working much harder precisely because they don't have a degree, if anything the degree serves as a license to slack off like the upper class so).
Otherwise the potential downside of not graduating with at least a bachelor's degree is so devastating that the population (who don't want to be perpetually responsible for their adult children that have been made unemployable in any decent capacity for no reason other than to make certain email job people feel important) will accept nothing less than a pass rate approaching ever closer to 100%.
If you want to make education rigorous, you have to address that problem and then also try to address the K-12 education system that faces a similar but more extreme version of the same issue (because not being able to properly read and write are genuinely bad indicators for the majority of white collar jobs, and failing to graduate high school tends to indicate fundamental issues in that respect moreso than failing to graduate with a bachelor's, which usually just indicates immaturity / lack of money / boredom / a million other things that don't imply missing fundamental skills).
Otherwise the potential downside of not graduating with at least a bachelor's degree is so devastating that the population (who don't want to be perpetually responsible for their adult children that have been made unemployable in any decent capacity for no reason other than to make certain email job people feel important) will accept nothing less than a pass rate approaching ever closer to 100%.
If you want to make education rigorous, you have to address that problem and then also try to address the K-12 education system that faces a similar but more extreme version of the same issue (because not being able to properly read and write are genuinely bad indicators for the majority of white collar jobs, and failing to graduate high school tends to indicate fundamental issues in that respect moreso than failing to graduate with a bachelor's, which usually just indicates immaturity / lack of money / boredom / a million other things that don't imply missing fundamental skills).
That difference in Asian societies as against Western ones doesn't come from "higher standards" or whatever; it comes from a much more mundane reason: not doing good in school here literally has immediate far-reaching consequences because everything is scarce and up for brutal competition.
In the West kids can randomly decide to drop entire years after high school, or even skip college altogether - because it's (apparently) easy to not be immediately destitute without a good job. In India and China children grow up witnessing how much of a divide that makes, and how thin the line seperating their fates from "respectable" to brutal poverty is. No kid growing in such an environment will take school lightly.
In the West kids can randomly decide to drop entire years after high school, or even skip college altogether - because it's (apparently) easy to not be immediately destitute without a good job. In India and China children grow up witnessing how much of a divide that makes, and how thin the line seperating their fates from "respectable" to brutal poverty is. No kid growing in such an environment will take school lightly.
I wonder if, as inequality increases and the social safety net disappears in the USA, this will change. My parents told me “do what you love, as long as you work hard you’ll succeed and be fine.” I did what I loved (the arts), worked my ass off and succeeded, and wasn’t fine. Thank god I learned to code in the 20-teens, when competition was lower.
I most certainly will transmitting a different set of values to my kids. Not going to go full straight A’s psychopath because I’ve seen what that’s done to some peers, but unless I win the lottery my kids will not be being told to just “do what they love” (unless they happen to love applied math lol)
I most certainly will transmitting a different set of values to my kids. Not going to go full straight A’s psychopath because I’ve seen what that’s done to some peers, but unless I win the lottery my kids will not be being told to just “do what they love” (unless they happen to love applied math lol)
Anything I’ve read about how South Korea treats its students makes me doubt it’s the way to go.
>In China students work very hard because they had to beat a tough competion to even be able to attend the University
This is an unfair comparison. The equivalent of those chinese students do work as hard in America - they just wouldn't be found at OP's school, there would be in a Tier 1 school.
This is an unfair comparison. The equivalent of those chinese students do work as hard in America - they just wouldn't be found at OP's school, there would be in a Tier 1 school.
Who do you think worked harder in high school?
A) the median university student in the USA?
B) the median university student in China?
Hint: in China, university admissions is based in large part on students's performance on the 高考, a national entrance exam, taken at the end of high school.
A) the median university student in the USA?
B) the median university student in China?
Hint: in China, university admissions is based in large part on students's performance on the 高考, a national entrance exam, taken at the end of high school.
My experience with Chinese universities is they work so hard to pass the gaokao to get in then relax through university. This is common throughout all of east Asia. Maybe at top universities it’s different.
[deleted]
From Hong Kong and it is tough to get in. Once you enter university you are free of reins and slack off.
[deleted]
When it comes to the ChatGPT-ification of cheating, I'd say it's an Anglosphere problem, as it's primarily trained on English-language material.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
I don't feel like asking for the slides is unreasonable/unimaginable. Probably varies by university and department, but for my degree (pre-COVID) all lecturers made their slides available on a VLE, generally in advance of the lecture.
I don't feel like asking for the slides is unreasonable/unimaginable. Probably varies by university and department, but for my degree (pre-COVID) all lecturers made their slides available on a VLE, generally in advance of the lecture.
It's also much easier to pay attention if you don't have to frantically take notes. To focus on what an equation means, instead of focusing on transcribing it correctly, and then maybe trying to understand it later, if there's any time left, before the lecture moves on.
Of you summarize yourself what the professor said and write it by hand there are more chances you will remember it.
Absolutely true, and writing down 'cheat sheets' of such summaries was one of the most effective ways to learn. But I simply did not have the understanding yet, within 60 seconds of being presented new material, to be able to write a good summary of it. And at the same time also write a non-summary, in the likely case that things would not be clear from the summary alone when reviewing. And do all of this before the lecture moves on to the next thing that needs first understanding, then transcribing, then summarizing.
This is why one attends lectures, reads the book, takes notes for both, and then assembles a summary.
It's called studying.
It's called studying.
Yes. And is studying more, or less efficient, when lectures are spent focused on transcription, instead of the material?
In lectures, focus on the material. When working from the book, you have oodles of time to transcribe. Hence, both modes of learning.
For some lectures I follow the course in class. For some other lectures I just read the slides on which the lectures are based and go in depth on my own. Some other friends follow all the lectures. Some others just don't follow that much.
I don't know why you provide a one method that should fit everyone, while everyone has a preferred way of studying that isn't necessarily the best approach for other people
I don't know why you provide a one method that should fit everyone, while everyone has a preferred way of studying that isn't necessarily the best approach for other people
Because the lecturing professor assigned a textbook, making both lectures and the textbook relevant to the course.
Also, it's at least three distinct methods! Read before lectures, read after lectures, read on both sides. Dealer's choice. Neglects recorded lectures and the possibilities they open up.
Talking about people's preferences and studying is funny. Most people prefer not to study. Preferences have little to do with good study habits. The above approaches have worked for hundreds of years just fine.
Also, it's at least three distinct methods! Read before lectures, read after lectures, read on both sides. Dealer's choice. Neglects recorded lectures and the possibilities they open up.
Talking about people's preferences and studying is funny. Most people prefer not to study. Preferences have little to do with good study habits. The above approaches have worked for hundreds of years just fine.
Well, of course if a textbook is required to be read, you read it period. I was talking about different study methods in the bounds of what is allowed to do
Yeah but depending on the pace of the lecture you might not even get everything down. So it's better to take some notes after class like this
Yea, this one was weird to me. Most of my professors would automatically send out their slides after class. After all you just… showed them to the whole class. What’s the point of keeping them a secret afterwards?
Same. My professors did this because they wanted you to not be spending your time and energy writing notes during class but instead following the lesson and asking questions.
Here in italy, in stem university (especially computer science) being given slides is a given.
Some teachers record their lectures as well, although it's not mandatory. For some subjects I prefer following in the class, and for some others imho having the slides and doing on your own is much better than having to follow lectures. It depends. But at least, you have a choice
Edit now that I think about it, everyone's mileage may vary wildly. I think I haven't been studying by taking notes in a lot of time. I'd rather just read the slides and try to understand the whys and whats behind what was explained. Some colleagues of mine would rather take notes or write a condensed version of the course material to better remember it. I guess ymmv a lot
Some teachers record their lectures as well, although it's not mandatory. For some subjects I prefer following in the class, and for some others imho having the slides and doing on your own is much better than having to follow lectures. It depends. But at least, you have a choice
Edit now that I think about it, everyone's mileage may vary wildly. I think I haven't been studying by taking notes in a lot of time. I'd rather just read the slides and try to understand the whys and whats behind what was explained. Some colleagues of mine would rather take notes or write a condensed version of the course material to better remember it. I guess ymmv a lot
Yea this was the one part that puzzled me. Why would a professor be protective of their lecture slides? I seem to remember most of my professors being fine with distributing these. Or at least it was never a point of contention.
Typically, the issue is slides allows the speaker to present stuff much faster than a person can realistically write (unlike writing on a board), so you end up with lossy notes. The coping mechanism for students is therefore by writing notes on the slides. Slides also help you preview the lecture, though few people probably actually do this.
But why wouldn't you just give them the slides? Isn't it the students problem if there is stuff missing?
It's not me who doesn't give the slides. Some people are just precious about their work. I personally don't think this type of attitude is great for a teaching professional.
My psych professor twenty years ago gave out the slides with strategic blanks in them, that way you didn't have to write the whole thing down, but you did need to listen at least to the point where you could fill in the missing bits.
> you end up with lossy notes
Notes are definitionally lossy. If they weren't lossy, they'd be a transcript.
The act of compressing a lecture into notes helps students learn. Merely transcribing does not imply understanding.
Notes are definitionally lossy. If they weren't lossy, they'd be a transcript.
The act of compressing a lecture into notes helps students learn. Merely transcribing does not imply understanding.
What I find though when taking notes from a non-academic conference presentation is that I often don’t know what the most salient points or compressed takeaways are in real-time. I don’t end up with a transcript but I do end up with a lot of discard and I’ll take pics of some slides.
Compressing accurately requires understanding what's important.
If you understand it that well already, why are you attending a lecture that covers it?
Truly excellent lecturers can often guide some people to that understanding in a note-friendly amount of time, but oh god, most people are not excellent lecturers. The vast majority that I attended were almost literally just reading from the book in class. Book-structured information isn't at all the same as lecture-structured.
If you understand it that well already, why are you attending a lecture that covers it?
Truly excellent lecturers can often guide some people to that understanding in a note-friendly amount of time, but oh god, most people are not excellent lecturers. The vast majority that I attended were almost literally just reading from the book in class. Book-structured information isn't at all the same as lecture-structured.
I’m terrible at learning from powerpoints just by watching/listening so I would write down ppt slides word for word in lectures. I absolutely could never keep up with the lecture pace, the instructors would move on to the next slide too quickly. They were usually great lecturers, it’s just inefficient to spend the extremely precious lecture time waiting for students to copy things down.
I did finally settle on a better solution, because my professors all shared the ppt slides at least day-of for every lecture. So I downloaded the ppt onto my tablet and used a stylus to write my notes to each slide. It worked well for me
I did finally settle on a better solution, because my professors all shared the ppt slides at least day-of for every lecture. So I downloaded the ppt onto my tablet and used a stylus to write my notes to each slide. It worked well for me
When I was an undergrad (2008-2012) I don't think I even had any classes that were given as PowerPoint slides. If they had been though, I don't think I would have felt bad asking for them - they definitely could have helped jog my memory! Notes aren't always perfect...
I was in school (2011-2016) and almost all professors had a wiki or moodle where we could find all their slides and documents.
I noticed that the rare few professors who didn't upload their powerpoints, were mostly the ones who would just recite the content of their slides in class (almost) word-for-word.
I noticed that the rare few professors who didn't upload their powerpoints, were mostly the ones who would just recite the content of their slides in class (almost) word-for-word.
I don't think I ever took any lecture notes at all in the entirety of my CS education at Carnegie Mellon, long before COVID. Everything the professors taught was in slides that were published online, or in the best cases, full fledged PDF lecture notes that explained everything in detail and were published online.
This makes it significantly easier to pay attention during lectures. Denying your students work that you have already done is ridiculous. Whether or not a student wants your lecture notes is orthogonal to whether they come to lecture.
This makes it significantly easier to pay attention during lectures. Denying your students work that you have already done is ridiculous. Whether or not a student wants your lecture notes is orthogonal to whether they come to lecture.
From my experience, if a lecturer doesn't give slides, there are two possible reasons:
1) They are not theirs and want to avoid being caught; 2) They believe they are the only source of truth and need to show the insects, I mean students, their place.
Saw both of them.
And if there are no lecture notes, I am not going to be more engaged with it. Au contrare, I will be franaticaly copying everything from them to my notebook and not listening to the lecture itself.
1) They are not theirs and want to avoid being caught; 2) They believe they are the only source of truth and need to show the insects, I mean students, their place.
Saw both of them.
And if there are no lecture notes, I am not going to be more engaged with it. Au contrare, I will be franaticaly copying everything from them to my notebook and not listening to the lecture itself.
[deleted]
Being given slides online and in paper form was a given when I went to university two decades ago, which puts the OP's "kids these days" rant into context[1]. You soon learned which lecturers added value with insights or exposition that went beyond the bullet points...
[1]with one exception, who used an overhead projector, except for the time it failed when she cancelled the lecture because she refused to use the blackboard on the grounds of aversion to chalk dust. A good lecturer tbf, and I think even she supplied us with blank subtitled lecture notes to copy her graphs onto
[1]with one exception, who used an overhead projector, except for the time it failed when she cancelled the lecture because she refused to use the blackboard on the grounds of aversion to chalk dust. A good lecturer tbf, and I think even she supplied us with blank subtitled lecture notes to copy her graphs onto
At many elite US universities the students now enter at a struggle because they have never read a novel cover to cover. That blew my mind when I read about it just a year or two ago. It explains why many younger developers simply cannot write casual emails at work and absolutely everything must be a time sucking video meeting. It’s an excuse to take a nap or do something unrelated on a different screen.
It may also explain why so many software developers now are fully incapable of developing software. Everything must start from the world’s largest frameworks and be AI assisted because I guess now even copy/paste is too tiresome. If you need to refactor it’s best to start over from scratch than debug.
The bad news is there are fewer and fewer young candidates available capable of writing original software. It’s the same problem Japan and Korea are having with regard to military enlistment. The population is shrinking, less interested, and less compatible to the minimal requirements.
The good news is that with this growing competence/compatibility gap it gets easier and easier to identify candidates that can perform versus those that absolutely have no current hope.
It may also explain why so many software developers now are fully incapable of developing software. Everything must start from the world’s largest frameworks and be AI assisted because I guess now even copy/paste is too tiresome. If you need to refactor it’s best to start over from scratch than debug.
The bad news is there are fewer and fewer young candidates available capable of writing original software. It’s the same problem Japan and Korea are having with regard to military enlistment. The population is shrinking, less interested, and less compatible to the minimal requirements.
The good news is that with this growing competence/compatibility gap it gets easier and easier to identify candidates that can perform versus those that absolutely have no current hope.
To be honest my interviewers couldn’t sound less interested when I told them about my thoughts on Camus' Caligula and my love-hate relationship with Livy's History of Rome when I applied for jobs, same when I applied for PhDs.
--------------
Similar things happened when I try to quote Dijkstra and "Out of the Tarpit" during coding interviews. I then started to quote Uncle Bob and they start to understand more. I am not sure people care about reading. Mind you this was the new grad job market.
--------------
Similar things happened when I try to quote Dijkstra and "Out of the Tarpit" during coding interviews. I then started to quote Uncle Bob and they start to understand more. I am not sure people care about reading. Mind you this was the new grad job market.
You're not wrong. Another part of the problem is that industry itself is rampantly anti-intellectual in many ways. I can't tell you how much of an uphill battle it can be to get coworkers to even acknowledge a useful idea from academia or read papers, even at good companies.
Hell, the "industry languages" are just now more broadly adopting good language design ideas that have been around in academic contexts for decades.
I'm not sure how to do it, but we really need a return to a society in which intellectual curiosity and sophisticated debate are viewed as worthwhile—our incessant desire to just maximize profit as quickly as possible over anything else and the sharp division between "the intellectual domain" of academy and "the real world" of industry needs to blur and evaporate.
Hell, the "industry languages" are just now more broadly adopting good language design ideas that have been around in academic contexts for decades.
I'm not sure how to do it, but we really need a return to a society in which intellectual curiosity and sophisticated debate are viewed as worthwhile—our incessant desire to just maximize profit as quickly as possible over anything else and the sharp division between "the intellectual domain" of academy and "the real world" of industry needs to blur and evaporate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
While things may be worse now with AI making source code itself disposable, and perhaps attention spans really are shorter (I wouldn't know either way, though it does sound a bit cliché for old people to complain about Kids These Days):
Time-sucking meetings have always been a problem, the difference now is just that they're online and you can do something else on another screen, rather than been stuck in a chair with a notepad to doodle in.
One of the two worst software developers I've ever had to work with was heavy on the copy-paste in the early 2010s, I think they'd been at it for a decade by that point already. They were using C++ and ObjC with manual memory management (and proud of it!) due to a complete lack of interest in learning the better ways. (The other one was bad in a different way, treated me the way I'd treat ChatGPT).
> The good news is that with this growing competence/compatibility gap it gets easier and easier to identify candidates that can perform versus those that absolutely have no current hope.
Is it, though? AI probably interviews better than I myself do — and yet, my main competitive advantage over AI (and, from your description, over my human competitors) is that I can actually focus on long-horizon tasks. Leetcode, how does {library de jour} perform {task}, what's the difference between {approach 1} and {approach 2}? That's all stuff that most of the LLMs can one-shot.
Time-sucking meetings have always been a problem, the difference now is just that they're online and you can do something else on another screen, rather than been stuck in a chair with a notepad to doodle in.
One of the two worst software developers I've ever had to work with was heavy on the copy-paste in the early 2010s, I think they'd been at it for a decade by that point already. They were using C++ and ObjC with manual memory management (and proud of it!) due to a complete lack of interest in learning the better ways. (The other one was bad in a different way, treated me the way I'd treat ChatGPT).
> The good news is that with this growing competence/compatibility gap it gets easier and easier to identify candidates that can perform versus those that absolutely have no current hope.
Is it, though? AI probably interviews better than I myself do — and yet, my main competitive advantage over AI (and, from your description, over my human competitors) is that I can actually focus on long-horizon tasks. Leetcode, how does {library de jour} perform {task}, what's the difference between {approach 1} and {approach 2}? That's all stuff that most of the LLMs can one-shot.
Back when I was a product manager in the late 80s and 90s, I had a ton of meetings where I would often have to walk to a different building and sit through an hour of meeting with no laptop/connectivity even if only 20% was relevant. You really couldn’t multitask.
> At many elite US universities the students now enter at a struggle because they have never read a novel cover to cover.
Meh, who cares? My son is a freshman at a large public high school in suburban Chicago. Yes, it’s “honors” English, but they read a novel cover-to-cover every 3-4 weeks. I get the weekly email from the school about which universities are visiting. Elite ones never visit, and as an Ivy League grad I get notified when they are in the area visiting more prestigious schools so I can schedule my son to go over to them for a visit (i.e. I know that they come visit in the area).
The elite schools have made their choice. They’ll discover their mistake later on.
Meh, who cares? My son is a freshman at a large public high school in suburban Chicago. Yes, it’s “honors” English, but they read a novel cover-to-cover every 3-4 weeks. I get the weekly email from the school about which universities are visiting. Elite ones never visit, and as an Ivy League grad I get notified when they are in the area visiting more prestigious schools so I can schedule my son to go over to them for a visit (i.e. I know that they come visit in the area).
The elite schools have made their choice. They’ll discover their mistake later on.
Elite in the economic sense. Places like Harvard are anti-progressive and serve to gate keep opportunity and wealth.
If a visit from a Ivy League school is the difference from submitting a App or not, that's not really the schools problem.
> What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down.
IMO, this is not the problem, but it’s definitely a problem. I think that we should, in fact, fail these kids. And if they repeatedly fail, they should be kicked out. I know that it’s politically untenable, but it also seems right.
It also seems wrong to me that these kids are accepted in to the university to begin with. It seems to me that there is a maturity gap here. Have these people never had the experience of not getting something that they want because they failed to obtain it?
IMO, this is not the problem, but it’s definitely a problem. I think that we should, in fact, fail these kids. And if they repeatedly fail, they should be kicked out. I know that it’s politically untenable, but it also seems right.
It also seems wrong to me that these kids are accepted in to the university to begin with. It seems to me that there is a maturity gap here. Have these people never had the experience of not getting something that they want because they failed to obtain it?
> It also seems wrong to me that these kids are accepted in to the university to begin with.
Free revenue for universities. Also, when your high school counselors, teachers, and administrators tell you to apply to college or else, this is what you get. When you convince employers to require degrees for middle class wages, this is what you get.
If these professors don't want to deal with illiterate kids, they should put the blame on the group that didn't prepare kids for college while telling them to apply anyway.
Free revenue for universities. Also, when your high school counselors, teachers, and administrators tell you to apply to college or else, this is what you get. When you convince employers to require degrees for middle class wages, this is what you get.
If these professors don't want to deal with illiterate kids, they should put the blame on the group that didn't prepare kids for college while telling them to apply anyway.
> Free revenue for universities.
Many years ago when I went to university my state created a fund to pay a certain portion of a student's credit hours. This was implemented in my second or third year from what I remember. I noticed that my direct out of pocket cost (or really how large the loan I took out was) never went down from before this program and after. The university was pretty flush with funding though.
Many years ago when I went to university my state created a fund to pay a certain portion of a student's credit hours. This was implemented in my second or third year from what I remember. I noticed that my direct out of pocket cost (or really how large the loan I took out was) never went down from before this program and after. The university was pretty flush with funding though.
This is exactly what happened in the US with the federal grants and loans. Universities just raised their prices.
Goes kind of deeper than that though.
How is a college realistically supposed to reject a guy with a clearly qualifying 28 or 29 on the ACT? You're going to have to give a helluv-an explanation for that, because I can guarantee, you do that to too many kids and the politicians are gonna come after you.
The problem is enormous. That kids can pass these entrance exams without being truly literate is what makes this issue so intractable.
To me, the only politically and socially acceptable option is to fail them in their college coursework. We don't do that though. Most students live by the "curve".
How is a college realistically supposed to reject a guy with a clearly qualifying 28 or 29 on the ACT? You're going to have to give a helluv-an explanation for that, because I can guarantee, you do that to too many kids and the politicians are gonna come after you.
The problem is enormous. That kids can pass these entrance exams without being truly literate is what makes this issue so intractable.
To me, the only politically and socially acceptable option is to fail them in their college coursework. We don't do that though. Most students live by the "curve".
Lots of brilliant kids get rejected with great ACT/SAT scores from elite universities, but they look down on those that lack "extracurricular" activities. Simple as that. It pissed me off when I realized that elite colleges would choose a football player over somebody that studied their butt off and did well in AP courses.
Well, that's the other half of the problem. Or the other edge of the sword of easy entrance exams. You get literally tens of thousands of kids that can get that 35 or 36 on the ACT. If you throw in the kids with the 34's it's even more ridiculous. And Harvard has maybe 2000 spots. (But probably not.)
The exams are just not providing enough separation.
The exams are just not providing enough separation.
> When you convince employers to require degrees for middle class wages, this is what you get.
Yes, that.
Also how did this happen?
And also, middle-school (high-school? what is it called on the US?) children are supposed to be able to read a small text and understand it too. This is one of those things everybody should be able to do, and employers have good reasons to require.
Yes, that.
Also how did this happen?
And also, middle-school (high-school? what is it called on the US?) children are supposed to be able to read a small text and understand it too. This is one of those things everybody should be able to do, and employers have good reasons to require.
> > What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all?
IMO any professor who doesn't fail a student who deserves it should be fired, tenure or no.
I had a professor who was in a tenure-track role in our math department and he was "brave" enough to fail me (just barely - 59.8 or thereabouts) in his first semester. I retook the class the very next semester and did better than most but it was definitely a wake up call for me about what it takes to actually do well at the collegiate level.
The classes I took in college didn't really help me very much in my career, but the work absolutely did. Whatever your metric of "professional success" is I would almost certainly be worse off if I had just been able to check off a few boxes and get through college without having to put in that effort.
Passing kids who should be failing does them a disservice. Graduating kids who should flunk out entirely does everyone else in society a disservice.
IMO any professor who doesn't fail a student who deserves it should be fired, tenure or no.
I had a professor who was in a tenure-track role in our math department and he was "brave" enough to fail me (just barely - 59.8 or thereabouts) in his first semester. I retook the class the very next semester and did better than most but it was definitely a wake up call for me about what it takes to actually do well at the collegiate level.
The classes I took in college didn't really help me very much in my career, but the work absolutely did. Whatever your metric of "professional success" is I would almost certainly be worse off if I had just been able to check off a few boxes and get through college without having to put in that effort.
Passing kids who should be failing does them a disservice. Graduating kids who should flunk out entirely does everyone else in society a disservice.
A long time ago I wanted to be a engineer and went to RPI. In those days, it was a real pressure-cooker program. A heavy workload, difficult tests--it was designed to crush the weak, and they actually bragged about the failure rate. Later after failing differential equations too many times, I went to the state school and got a degree in English. One of my favorite comments on a paper from a teacher was "You seem to have at least understood the text, which is more than I can say for some of your classmates." It's just gotten worse since then. I've heard similar stories from people I know who teach at the college level these days.
Everyone wants a competitive system where only the best and most qualified advance and everyone imagines themselves among the best and most qualified deserving of advancement. For the majority of us, in an actual competitive system, that belief will run up against the rocks of reality to some extent. You might be great at something but no one is great at everything except that one obnoxious guy you went to high school with. No one likes to find out that they suck, and the way our system is designed right now where students pick their colleges sets up a sort of "fix the grade or we'll take our money elsewhere" leverage students and parents can use against the institution. With the increasing necessity of a college degree in everyone's quest to eat food and sleep indoors, that pressure is only escalating. Junior being not the brightest knife in the crayon box is a tale as old as human society, but until recently Junior used to be able to limp across the finish line in high school and get a job in a factory and have a life. Not the best life, but a life. Nowadays a job where you can comfortably raise a family without a college degree are dwindling. That means that Junior's ability to make a living is gonna depend on getting a degree, and if Junior can't get a degree through competence he will try other ways to get a degree before he'll resign himself to starvation and indigence.
If you're about to type the word "trade school" that's an entirely different debate that I'd love to have with you but trade school, while potentially viable for a single person to fix their own situation, is not the answer to the overall problem at a societal level. We need to either return to a situation where the additional post-secondary training and education aren't required or we need to figure out a way to get people the additional post-secondary training and education.
If you're about to type the word "trade school" that's an entirely different debate that I'd love to have with you but trade school, while potentially viable for a single person to fix their own situation, is not the answer to the overall problem at a societal level. We need to either return to a situation where the additional post-secondary training and education aren't required or we need to figure out a way to get people the additional post-secondary training and education.
> trade school, while potentially viable for a single person to fix their own situation, is not the answer to the overall problem at a societal level
Isn't it? Isn't being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world in the current time and place (as opposed to some idealistic past that may or may not have ever existed) a way to "fix this" at a societal level?
Whether or not it's easy or even possible to live a middle-class without starting a business or getting a college degree is irrelevant to whether or not we should be giving college degrees to people who submit this as an answer to a final exam:
> > With the UGM its all about our journey in life, not the destination. He beleives [sic] we need to take time to enjoy the little things becuase [sic] life is short and you never gonna [sic] know what happens. Sometimes he contradicts himself cause [sic] sometimes you say one thing but then you think something else later. It’s all relative.
Isn't it? Isn't being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world in the current time and place (as opposed to some idealistic past that may or may not have ever existed) a way to "fix this" at a societal level?
Whether or not it's easy or even possible to live a middle-class without starting a business or getting a college degree is irrelevant to whether or not we should be giving college degrees to people who submit this as an answer to a final exam:
> > With the UGM its all about our journey in life, not the destination. He beleives [sic] we need to take time to enjoy the little things becuase [sic] life is short and you never gonna [sic] know what happens. Sometimes he contradicts himself cause [sic] sometimes you say one thing but then you think something else later. It’s all relative.
I'm pretty confident I didn't say any of the things you're rebutting.
>Isn't being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world in the current time and place (as opposed to some idealistic past that may or may not have ever existed) a way to "fix this" at a societal level?
"Being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world" is very different from and much broader than "take up a trade". The fact is if everyone who isn't being served by the current higher education system today became a plumber or a carpenter tomorrow the increased supply without a concomitant increase in demand would force the pay for those jobs into the shitter as well and we'd still have an army of the underemployed.
>Whether or not[sic] it's easy or even possible to live a middle-class without starting a business or getting a college degree is irrelevant to whether or not[sic] we should be giving college degrees to people who submit this as an answer to a final exam:
I didn't say we should give degrees to people who can't demonstrate the skills or knowledge either, only that if we make survival contingent on getting degrees people who can't get them legitimately will try to get them illegitimately. People have a distressing tendency to try to continue to live even when the rules tell them that they shouldn't.
>Isn't being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world in the current time and place (as opposed to some idealistic past that may or may not have ever existed) a way to "fix this" at a societal level?
"Being realistic about your skills in relation to the rest of the world" is very different from and much broader than "take up a trade". The fact is if everyone who isn't being served by the current higher education system today became a plumber or a carpenter tomorrow the increased supply without a concomitant increase in demand would force the pay for those jobs into the shitter as well and we'd still have an army of the underemployed.
>Whether or not[sic] it's easy or even possible to live a middle-class without starting a business or getting a college degree is irrelevant to whether or not[sic] we should be giving college degrees to people who submit this as an answer to a final exam:
I didn't say we should give degrees to people who can't demonstrate the skills or knowledge either, only that if we make survival contingent on getting degrees people who can't get them legitimately will try to get them illegitimately. People have a distressing tendency to try to continue to live even when the rules tell them that they shouldn't.
Most parents either are not interested or don’t have the time and resources to provide the at home educational support kids need. Teachers cannot do everything, and they are already stretched thin and underpaid (~1600 school districts across 24 states in the US are on 4 day weeks to attempt to retain teachers). Admins want to maintain the status quo as long as possible; they appeal to parents at the cost of teachers and are in no position to obtain more funding. Therefore, we continue to stumble towards educational system failure.
The domestic educational pipeline to college, broadly speaking, is in poor shape.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/parents-under-pressu... ("When stress is severe or prolonged, it can have a deleterious effect; 41% of parents say that most days they are so stressed they cannot function and 48% say that most days their stress is completely overwhelming compared to other adults (20% and 26%, respectively)."
https://medium.com/@madougherty90/the-hollowing-of-america-h...
https://pudding.cool/2024/03/teenagers/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40053774
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/whats-happening-to-students
The domestic educational pipeline to college, broadly speaking, is in poor shape.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/parents-under-pressu... ("When stress is severe or prolonged, it can have a deleterious effect; 41% of parents say that most days they are so stressed they cannot function and 48% say that most days their stress is completely overwhelming compared to other adults (20% and 26%, respectively)."
https://medium.com/@madougherty90/the-hollowing-of-america-h...
https://pudding.cool/2024/03/teenagers/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40053774
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/whats-happening-to-students
>Most parents either are not interested or don’t have the time and resources to provide the at home educational support kids need. Teachers cannot do everything, and they are already stretched thin and underpaid (~1600 school districts across 24 states in the US are on 4 day weeks to attempt to retain teachers).
My central question is what are other countries doing that we aren't? Because other countries aren't seeing such a dire and systematic drop in student's academic ability. Germany being the most notable for how it directs its resources, even though its a fairly rigid in many respects.
I don't get the sense that parents in Europe are overwhelmingly more involved in the schools either, but I have limited purview into that specifically, having only had the pleasure of meeting europeans of different backgrounds (UK, Sweden, Germany most specifically) via work, its a limited subset of understanding, however most of the folks I've worked with who grew up in any of these European countries really seemed to believe in hands off parenting even more so, and experienced it often in kind.
I have one theory, which is that education is highly politicized in the US in a way that perhaps its not in other western countries. This has been happening since the 1960s but it really accelerated in the last 30 years or so.
My central question is what are other countries doing that we aren't? Because other countries aren't seeing such a dire and systematic drop in student's academic ability. Germany being the most notable for how it directs its resources, even though its a fairly rigid in many respects.
I don't get the sense that parents in Europe are overwhelmingly more involved in the schools either, but I have limited purview into that specifically, having only had the pleasure of meeting europeans of different backgrounds (UK, Sweden, Germany most specifically) via work, its a limited subset of understanding, however most of the folks I've worked with who grew up in any of these European countries really seemed to believe in hands off parenting even more so, and experienced it often in kind.
I have one theory, which is that education is highly politicized in the US in a way that perhaps its not in other western countries. This has been happening since the 1960s but it really accelerated in the last 30 years or so.
You're assuming a difference between the U.S. and Europe that's not there. Looking at the 2018 PISA scores, for example, U.S. 15-year-olds do fine in reading: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2018/pdf/PISA2018_compi.... Slightly ahead of Norway, Germany, Denmark, and New Zealand.
The U.S. does much worse in math, but I don't know why any of the explanations being discussed here (parental involvement, etc.) would result in good reading scores but bad math scores.
The U.S. does much worse in math, but I don't know why any of the explanations being discussed here (parental involvement, etc.) would result in good reading scores but bad math scores.
I think a far more relevant set of statistics would be post graduate outcomes for students, such as university achievement (including graduation rates)[0]
[0]: https://www.ijbmcnet.com/images/Vol3No3/2.pdf
[0]: https://www.ijbmcnet.com/images/Vol3No3/2.pdf
By this metric, United States is doing very well. Over 50% of Americans aged 25-34 have completed tertiary education, putting us at the 5th position within OECD, well ahead of countries like Germany, Sweden, France, Italy, Denmark, or Poland.
I don't think it's a meaningful metric, though, because most tertiary degrees are a waste of time, and higher university graduation rate can be worse if that translates to more people getting useless degrees.
I don't think it's a meaningful metric, though, because most tertiary degrees are a waste of time, and higher university graduation rate can be worse if that translates to more people getting useless degrees.
Is there any reason to think that these differences are not entirely explained by immigration in the USA?
As a country -
We spend 50% more on education than our peer countries, and our outcomes are worse.
We spend twice per person on healthcare as our peers, and our health outcomes are worse.
We cannot build anything (roads, houses, etc) at anywhere near the cost or quality of our peers.
We spend, in addition to our tax revenue, an additional 40% that we borrow, and we will soon be paying over half of our tax revenue just for the interest on our growing debt.
We are not pleasant to be around
We are fat, stupid, broke, and churlish. Not very good marriage material.
We spend 50% more on education than our peer countries, and our outcomes are worse.
We spend twice per person on healthcare as our peers, and our health outcomes are worse.
We cannot build anything (roads, houses, etc) at anywhere near the cost or quality of our peers.
We spend, in addition to our tax revenue, an additional 40% that we borrow, and we will soon be paying over half of our tax revenue just for the interest on our growing debt.
We are not pleasant to be around
We are fat, stupid, broke, and churlish. Not very good marriage material.
These are all issues with varying degrees of seemingly personal interjections or non related pieces of information that don’t address nor seemingly relate in any meaningful way about what I’m asking.
If I take this at face value, you believe the US education is failing only because Americans are fat, stupid, and broke and simultaneously spend too much on education for worse outcomes, which contradicts being broke.
Yet there could be no other, more specific reasons such as leveraging education and specifically school boards for partisan purposes? A practice of which that has only increased in frequency over the last 30 years?
If I take this at face value, you believe the US education is failing only because Americans are fat, stupid, and broke and simultaneously spend too much on education for worse outcomes, which contradicts being broke.
Yet there could be no other, more specific reasons such as leveraging education and specifically school boards for partisan purposes? A practice of which that has only increased in frequency over the last 30 years?
They often pay teachers really well and they give them a lot of autonomy. In contrast, the US pays teachers really poorly and gives them little autonomy. They also give kids better food, better classrooms, more access to supplies, and more opportunities for enrichment so there is something to reach for.
So if you want to replicate the european system you have to treat education like it's more than just a daycare, and you have to make teaching a prestigious professional job instead of babysitting with math. And you have to pay for it.
So if you want to replicate the european system you have to treat education like it's more than just a daycare, and you have to make teaching a prestigious professional job instead of babysitting with math. And you have to pay for it.
I think the primary difference is other countries track their students. Not just in separate classrooms, not a self-selected honours programme, but actually different high schools for people who score higher on the entrance exams.
There are different kinds of autonomy. In every European country I am familiar with there's a fairly rigid curriculum (national or otherwise) that needs to be followed, but there's often a lot of autonomy about how individual lessons are delivered. I think in the US, you might argue that the opposite situation exists.
What makes you think that other countries aren't seeing the same decline? In France, as far as I can tell, the situation is similar.
For instance, I've seen a lot of interviews like this https://youtu.be/7Pl4rvZ9amc?si=RMm8B1BmSSdNt0vq
My brother, who is a high school teacher in Canada tells me similar stories from his first-hand experience.
For instance, I've seen a lot of interviews like this https://youtu.be/7Pl4rvZ9amc?si=RMm8B1BmSSdNt0vq
My brother, who is a high school teacher in Canada tells me similar stories from his first-hand experience.
>Teachers cannot do everything, and they are already stretched thin and underpaid
One could make the argument that they can't even do anything. They exist at this point mostly because if they didn't, we'd have packs of naked feral 10 year olds roaming the streets and butchering any human they found for cannibalism. Have you ever seen a reddit thread where someone randomly thanks the gods because the kids finally school age and they can stop spending $40,000/year (or more) on daycare?
But, I think, in the coming decades all these problems will evaporate like some nightmare that fades away upon waking... public schools will continue to close at ever-increasing rates as our population rapidly ages.
One could make the argument that they can't even do anything. They exist at this point mostly because if they didn't, we'd have packs of naked feral 10 year olds roaming the streets and butchering any human they found for cannibalism. Have you ever seen a reddit thread where someone randomly thanks the gods because the kids finally school age and they can stop spending $40,000/year (or more) on daycare?
But, I think, in the coming decades all these problems will evaporate like some nightmare that fades away upon waking... public schools will continue to close at ever-increasing rates as our population rapidly ages.
If you ask peolle whether they're stressed of course they say they are. But they are objectively living in less stressful times than parents in the years in which young men were sent off to die in the trenches, but their younger siblings and young children still got better educations than kids are getting today. So maybe self-reported parental stress isn't actually the issue. Maybe we need to accept the issue is low standards at every level of education and teachers being unwilling to teach basic grammar, spelling, arithmetic, etc. because they are seen as "old fashioned"?
If the standards are high, and cohorts can't meet them because they are setup to fail, what will we do then? If we already don't have sufficient resources for folks to meet the bar at scale, there will be nothing for those who need help over the hurdle (remedial help), correct? It's not the fault of the fish when you ask it to climb a tree and it can't. Unreasonable expectations, and all that.
I am fairly confident nothing is going to change (we are not going to suddenly enable parents more time to be involved parents [1], fund K-12 at appropriate levels (federal gov destroying education funding systems [2], etc) and the winning move is to convince young people to not have kids versus telling parents and students they aren't trying hard enough while we give them scant resources and support, based on all available information. Shades of the US parent version of the Kobayashi Maru or War Games ("The only winning move is not to play.").
If you think the problem is teachers or parents in a vacuum, you have not consumed enough data. These are systems problems.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/06/opinion/worki...
[2] https://usafacts.org/answers/what-percentage-of-public-schoo...
I am fairly confident nothing is going to change (we are not going to suddenly enable parents more time to be involved parents [1], fund K-12 at appropriate levels (federal gov destroying education funding systems [2], etc) and the winning move is to convince young people to not have kids versus telling parents and students they aren't trying hard enough while we give them scant resources and support, based on all available information. Shades of the US parent version of the Kobayashi Maru or War Games ("The only winning move is not to play.").
If you think the problem is teachers or parents in a vacuum, you have not consumed enough data. These are systems problems.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/06/opinion/worki...
[2] https://usafacts.org/answers/what-percentage-of-public-schoo...
The people who lived through those times in the trenches tend to pass down their stress to their children if it's not adequately addressed first. Then they get told that because they have it better than their parents, their stress is irrelevant and they need to forge on regardless.
I think this is a multifaceted problem more complicated than just runaway stress, the state of education, or addictive technology. All of these systems feed back into each other to create a perfect storm.
I think this is a multifaceted problem more complicated than just runaway stress, the state of education, or addictive technology. All of these systems feed back into each other to create a perfect storm.
> IMO, this is not the problem, but it’s definitely a problem. I think that we should, in fact, fail these kids. And if they repeatedly fail, they should be kicked out. I know that it’s politically untenable, but it also seems right.
This is an issue with nonpublic education, where there much economic incentive in keeping students in.
This is an issue with nonpublic education, where there much economic incentive in keeping students in.
The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that there isn't a change in the population average for variable X, but that the decrease in college students' average X is due to an increase in population college going rates.
Looking at the statistics[1], the US went from a 23.2% college completion rate in 1990 to 39.2% completion rate in 2022, or a 67% increase in college degree completions. If you assume that X in the population is constant over time, mechanically you will need to enroll and graduate students from lower percentiles of X in order to increase the overall college completion rate in the whole population.
This process might be particularly acute at "lower tier" institutions that cannot compete with "top tier" institutions for top students.
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_104.20.a...
Looking at the statistics[1], the US went from a 23.2% college completion rate in 1990 to 39.2% completion rate in 2022, or a 67% increase in college degree completions. If you assume that X in the population is constant over time, mechanically you will need to enroll and graduate students from lower percentiles of X in order to increase the overall college completion rate in the whole population.
This process might be particularly acute at "lower tier" institutions that cannot compete with "top tier" institutions for top students.
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_104.20.a...
I don't think the increase is big enough. A 67% increase means the "new" students are 41% of the population. But these reports are coming from all over the place and describing the majority of their class.
You can also see it in the whole pipeline. Everything he described is true (age adjusted) for K-12 as well.
You can also see it in the whole pipeline. Everything he described is true (age adjusted) for K-12 as well.
This particular professor has been teaching for 30 years. I'm not sure I find your explanation all that convincing in light of that, especially since this isn't an isolated opinion.
I'm much more interested in how much the average student has had a phone to distract them during their lifetime. For the incoming 2025 class of 18 year olds, the iPhone came out the year they were born. So potentially 100%. I expect that plus the availability of LLMs is a deadly combo on an engaged student body.
I'm much more interested in how much the average student has had a phone to distract them during their lifetime. For the incoming 2025 class of 18 year olds, the iPhone came out the year they were born. So potentially 100%. I expect that plus the availability of LLMs is a deadly combo on an engaged student body.
Based on the intro of the article, the university where this professor works is likely below median. Each year the typical student at his/her university is worse because the best students go to better schools
That most likely explains the slow creep of grade inflation, remedial courses, etc. which has been going on for decades. This article touches on that but mostly describes an entirely different phenomenon.
I've finished my Bc. in computer science before AI, but even then, sitting through a 1.5h long lecture and reading a textbook was just not the way to learn.
a) better quality lectures were available online - it's much easier to learn linear algebra from top MIT Professor than a random one at my university
b) the text books were absolutely terrible compared to what was available online
I can understand that 20 years ago people were captivated with the physical lectures because it was the only way. Today however, professors are competing with 3blue1brown, Khan academy, pre recorded lectures from top universities and many more great resources. Standing in front of a blackboard slowly going through an unintuitive math proof is just not going to cut it and people will get bored.
a) better quality lectures were available online - it's much easier to learn linear algebra from top MIT Professor than a random one at my university
b) the text books were absolutely terrible compared to what was available online
I can understand that 20 years ago people were captivated with the physical lectures because it was the only way. Today however, professors are competing with 3blue1brown, Khan academy, pre recorded lectures from top universities and many more great resources. Standing in front of a blackboard slowly going through an unintuitive math proof is just not going to cut it and people will get bored.
I doubt many were “captivated” by large in-person lectures. But you didn’t really have options.
In my experience in-person lectures have been a terrible way to actually learn (compared to recorded ones or other ways of learning):
1. Lectures are often not held in front of just a handful of students, but hundreds, where frequent interaction and questioning between student and lecturer becomes practically impossible, awkward and socially intimidating. Sitting between many other students is incredibly distracting, and I've more than once seen students bring binoculars to class, because they sat so far away from the blackboard!
2. Only a small fraction of lecturers are actually good at teaching, of being engaged and engaging, clear and concise, understandable and empathetic. Not to mention nice handwriting or powerpoint style. Being "forced" to listen to someone whose style of teaching you don't understand or don't vibe with sucks.
3. If you lose the thread in a deep in-person lecture, you might as well just leave. If you watch a recorded one, you can rewind as often as you want until you understand it.
4. Lecture hall rooms are often not the beautiful, comfortable, nice places you love to go to that they ought to be (but dilapidated, broken, uncomfortable, tight, stuffy and dirty).
In these contexts, sitting in a lecture hall becomes more hell than heaven. And professors shouldn't expect their students to find their passion while having to endure this.
1. Lectures are often not held in front of just a handful of students, but hundreds, where frequent interaction and questioning between student and lecturer becomes practically impossible, awkward and socially intimidating. Sitting between many other students is incredibly distracting, and I've more than once seen students bring binoculars to class, because they sat so far away from the blackboard!
2. Only a small fraction of lecturers are actually good at teaching, of being engaged and engaging, clear and concise, understandable and empathetic. Not to mention nice handwriting or powerpoint style. Being "forced" to listen to someone whose style of teaching you don't understand or don't vibe with sucks.
3. If you lose the thread in a deep in-person lecture, you might as well just leave. If you watch a recorded one, you can rewind as often as you want until you understand it.
4. Lecture hall rooms are often not the beautiful, comfortable, nice places you love to go to that they ought to be (but dilapidated, broken, uncomfortable, tight, stuffy and dirty).
In these contexts, sitting in a lecture hall becomes more hell than heaven. And professors shouldn't expect their students to find their passion while having to endure this.
>1. Lectures are often not held in front of just a handful of students, but hundreds, where frequent interaction and questioning between student and lecturer becomes practically impossible, awkward and socially intimidating. Sitting between many other students is incredibly distracting, and I've more than once seen students bring binoculars to class, because they sat so far away from the blackboard!
Where on earth did you go to school?
Where on earth did you go to school?
Any big school over 10k students
Not all learning is about being captivated. You have to eat your vegetables
Vegetables can taste good if you cook them properly. Healthy food doesn't have to taste bad, and lectures don't have to be boring either
> What has changed exactly? Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Last semester across all sections, my average student missed two weeks of class.
I graduated from college in 2001 and the above was true back then too so not sure why the author is making this seem like a new thing.
e.g. for CompSci classes at Rutgers back then:
- First week of class: no open seats in a giant lecture hall
- Halfway through semester: about 50% of people were showing up
- 3/4 of semester: I distinctly remember there being ~10 of us in a lecture hall able to hold 100 people and someone asking "where is everybody??"
- Final exam: lecture hall 90% full with people taking the final
I graduated from college in 2001 and the above was true back then too so not sure why the author is making this seem like a new thing.
e.g. for CompSci classes at Rutgers back then:
- First week of class: no open seats in a giant lecture hall
- Halfway through semester: about 50% of people were showing up
- 3/4 of semester: I distinctly remember there being ~10 of us in a lecture hall able to hold 100 people and someone asking "where is everybody??"
- Final exam: lecture hall 90% full with people taking the final
I never went to class myself unless I was required, had an exam, or loved it. Sometimes I would skip my research advisor's class to do research in his lab. Even if I wasn't in class, I was there though. I'd get notes from someone.
Graduated 2005 in New Zealand, for every large class it was the same as this as well.
The whole education system and its purpose is crumbling. Not just the universities but all the way down to preschool. It started with the internet, gained steam with top notch content being available on YouTube, and it's properly dying with the advent of AI.
If the purpose is to learn, you can do it better with YouTube and AI. If the purpose is to have fun, socialize and network, that is better done elsewhere, doing sports or other hobbies with other people. If it's babysitting you need, there are cheaper, better and more fun ways for the kids to spend their days. If the purpose is to learn a job, again, education is a terribly wasteful way of achieving that.
Then there's the fact that we'll all soon have to come to terms with, which is that most people are already barely able to contribute value to a white collar job, and in 20 years I'm pretty sure that number will be down 99%.
If the purpose is to learn, you can do it better with YouTube and AI. If the purpose is to have fun, socialize and network, that is better done elsewhere, doing sports or other hobbies with other people. If it's babysitting you need, there are cheaper, better and more fun ways for the kids to spend their days. If the purpose is to learn a job, again, education is a terribly wasteful way of achieving that.
Then there's the fact that we'll all soon have to come to terms with, which is that most people are already barely able to contribute value to a white collar job, and in 20 years I'm pretty sure that number will be down 99%.
> If the purpose is to learn, you can do it better with YouTube and AI.
I’d argue that is true for STEM but not for humanities.
I’d argue that is true for STEM but not for humanities.
To be blunt, the current economic value of the humanities is pretty low, just like STEM as developed by humans will be in the future. I think universities may play a role in the future, but more as something people do for fun as a hobby, and not mainly for its superior teaching capability, but for the social experience.
> To be blunt, the current economic value of the humanities is pretty low,
The bill usually comes due when we faithfully recreate failures of the past while failing to learn from others' experiences in the present.
There are two types of people in the world; those who can understand the humanities without the help of an instructor, and those who are incapable of putting such abstract knowledge to good use. Zero overlap.
Then they simply do not matter.
The discussion in almost every post on HN that's about humanities topics reminds me how much they do, most of all to those who think they don't.
Don't matter for what: thinking, aesthetic appreciation, insights on humanity, knowledge of what came before, understanding current events, questioning the status quo, what is it that they don't matter for?
It's questionable that the humanities teach thinking. This stream of essays by humanities profs isn't a good advert for their own thinking abilities, let alone their ability to teach it. In fairness this specific article isn't too hard on the phones, but the essay could have been shrunk to one sentence: we aren't allowed to fail students so they see no reason to study. That the entire explanation needed. Everything else is just flavour.
So if they're all about teaching how to think, where are the brilliantly thought out ideas for tackling their problem? Surely that's where their own skills should be valuable?
So if they're all about teaching how to think, where are the brilliantly thought out ideas for tackling their problem? Surely that's where their own skills should be valuable?
> It's questionable that the humanities teach thinking.
Philosophy is an obvious counter to that claim. It's hard to see how anyone could major in a humanities and not think, even with LLMs. But perhaps the problem is thinking that requiring everyone to take a sampling of intro humanities courses will force them to think instead of just getting by.
> we aren't allowed to fail students so they see no reason to study.
But that wasn't the issue previously for a majority of this professor's 30 years teaching, it's something that changed recently.
Philosophy is an obvious counter to that claim. It's hard to see how anyone could major in a humanities and not think, even with LLMs. But perhaps the problem is thinking that requiring everyone to take a sampling of intro humanities courses will force them to think instead of just getting by.
> we aren't allowed to fail students so they see no reason to study.
But that wasn't the issue previously for a majority of this professor's 30 years teaching, it's something that changed recently.
How is that your takeaway??
I pulled out trend lines of capability and made projections from this, and easily avoided the red meat of testing and humanities.
They don’t have a solution, because it’s a system level issue - well beyond what teachers, who are already underfunded, can do.
This is the alarm bell being rung.
I pulled out trend lines of capability and made projections from this, and easily avoided the red meat of testing and humanities.
They don’t have a solution, because it’s a system level issue - well beyond what teachers, who are already underfunded, can do.
This is the alarm bell being rung.
If coming up with systems-level solutions to systems-level problems isn't what learning how to think means, then what does it mean?
If you’re saying humanities don’t matter because you can’t learn them on YouTube or via ai slop then that’s a very sad point of view.
I visited colleagues in the U.K. and France a couple of weeks ago over spring break. Definitely interesting to compare grading approaches with ours here in the US. Both still have end of the semester in class exams which count for a large majority of the grade.
Things I really appreciated: in the U.K. model - the professors job is not to teach; instead they provide reading material/assignments via which the student will learn by themselves. In the French model grades are out of 20. I asked what fraction of their students get a 20/20 in a class every year, and they looked at me confused - “Students never get a 20/20. A good grade is a 16/20!”.
In France, tuition is essentially free. I think expecting every student to finish in 4 years is a huge loss compared to my experience at big state school in the late 90’s where people routinely did 5 or 6 years. I think we can widespread meaningful learning, accurate grades, and fixed duration programs, but not all 3!
Things I really appreciated: in the U.K. model - the professors job is not to teach; instead they provide reading material/assignments via which the student will learn by themselves. In the French model grades are out of 20. I asked what fraction of their students get a 20/20 in a class every year, and they looked at me confused - “Students never get a 20/20. A good grade is a 16/20!”.
In France, tuition is essentially free. I think expecting every student to finish in 4 years is a huge loss compared to my experience at big state school in the late 90’s where people routinely did 5 or 6 years. I think we can widespread meaningful learning, accurate grades, and fixed duration programs, but not all 3!
> Students never get a 20/20. A good grade is a 16/20!
This right here I think is a huge factor. Pretty much every top student in my college classes and highschool were essentially just testbots optimizing for maxing out quiz and exams grades. They barely even grasped the material, they just pestered the teachers into telling the class what types of questions would be on the exams, memorized the formulas, and bitched incessantly when it wasn't 1:1 with what they were given. Professors also have to be super careful about what is on the exam because top grade being a 16/20 means the entire class is failing. The whole education system needs to be reworked to punish this kind of optimization that doesn't even reward knowing the material.
This right here I think is a huge factor. Pretty much every top student in my college classes and highschool were essentially just testbots optimizing for maxing out quiz and exams grades. They barely even grasped the material, they just pestered the teachers into telling the class what types of questions would be on the exams, memorized the formulas, and bitched incessantly when it wasn't 1:1 with what they were given. Professors also have to be super careful about what is on the exam because top grade being a 16/20 means the entire class is failing. The whole education system needs to be reworked to punish this kind of optimization that doesn't even reward knowing the material.
Exactly my experience in Belgium where we have a similar grade system. Teachers would give a list of questions in advance, students would just memorize the answers and repeat them at the exam. Most of them had absolutely zero understanding of the material.
Meanwhile, students who need to actually understand what they are learning (I can't memorize like others) before passing a test often end up with worse grades but a better understanding.
Absolutely broken system.
Meanwhile, students who need to actually understand what they are learning (I can't memorize like others) before passing a test often end up with worse grades but a better understanding.
Absolutely broken system.
An old teacher's saying from Turkey (where grades were out of 10 back then): 10 is for god, 9 is for me, the best student gets an 8.
Low attention span isn't an illness. It's an adaptation to live in a world where information is available, even thrust at you, from all sides, but most of it has negative, zero, or very low positive value and there are no sources of consistently high quality.
When I visit Hacker News I don't click on every link and read it. I read the headlines and click on the interesting ones. But I don't even read the headlines - I skim them. I skip over "Rust Any part 3: we have upcasts" and go straight to the next item: "Everyone knows all the apps on your phone".
My email inbox is the same way. Because I get all this marketing stuff, newsletters, mailing lists, recurring invoices (for a successful payment that's about as important as reading a daily email about a successful cron job).
Why don't I unsubscribe from everything? Because sometimes they're interesting. So I have to skim the headlines and pick them out. I receive everything, then filter it. (I knew about Bitcoin in 2009, Talk to Transformer in early 2020, and CLIP/VQGAN in 2021. If only I had an ounce of business sense, though it's reassuring that nor do most other people)
This is the wrong mode for school, where they're trying to teach you something specific deeply. But someone who's only operated in this mode for their whole life isn't going to be able to turn it off just for school, right?
I think in the past we received information through a lot less channels - an unusually large amount would be two or three newspapers on your doorstep every day and five to ten monthly magazine subscriptions. And many of them had relatively limited scope - like magazines about gardening or weightlifting - so you could unsubscribe if you didn't like that topic. Reddit and Twitter and Instagram try to be sources of everything.
When I visit Hacker News I don't click on every link and read it. I read the headlines and click on the interesting ones. But I don't even read the headlines - I skim them. I skip over "Rust Any part 3: we have upcasts" and go straight to the next item: "Everyone knows all the apps on your phone".
My email inbox is the same way. Because I get all this marketing stuff, newsletters, mailing lists, recurring invoices (for a successful payment that's about as important as reading a daily email about a successful cron job).
Why don't I unsubscribe from everything? Because sometimes they're interesting. So I have to skim the headlines and pick them out. I receive everything, then filter it. (I knew about Bitcoin in 2009, Talk to Transformer in early 2020, and CLIP/VQGAN in 2021. If only I had an ounce of business sense, though it's reassuring that nor do most other people)
This is the wrong mode for school, where they're trying to teach you something specific deeply. But someone who's only operated in this mode for their whole life isn't going to be able to turn it off just for school, right?
I think in the past we received information through a lot less channels - an unusually large amount would be two or three newspapers on your doorstep every day and five to ten monthly magazine subscriptions. And many of them had relatively limited scope - like magazines about gardening or weightlifting - so you could unsubscribe if you didn't like that topic. Reddit and Twitter and Instagram try to be sources of everything.
Same kids as always but so many are displaced today. Most of them shouldn’t be in a university as they aren’t particularly smart, curious, or interested in becoming a serious person at that moment.
Most kids can’t read serious fiction or ruminate about classical philosophy because they just don’t have the tools to get there. They’re disengaged because they don’t want to be there but the alternatives are worse, or appear to be. They’re escaping reality because they’re constantly being humiliated.
I don’t have a solution in today’s knowledge economy where being smart, which most people aren’t, is a prerequisite to “success”. I can criticize though as that’s easy. The university system is not for most people. The idea that we should ensure that those that belong should get pathways in and not overlooked means we try to send everyone. And it feels like social death to many if you don’t go.
Maybe the kids are smart enough to realize college is mainly a bullshit hurdle to get over so they can get a bullshit job and that little of what they learn matters in that bullshit job. That a diploma is a checkbox and not an affirmation of intellectuality in most cases.
Most kids can’t read serious fiction or ruminate about classical philosophy because they just don’t have the tools to get there. They’re disengaged because they don’t want to be there but the alternatives are worse, or appear to be. They’re escaping reality because they’re constantly being humiliated.
I don’t have a solution in today’s knowledge economy where being smart, which most people aren’t, is a prerequisite to “success”. I can criticize though as that’s easy. The university system is not for most people. The idea that we should ensure that those that belong should get pathways in and not overlooked means we try to send everyone. And it feels like social death to many if you don’t go.
Maybe the kids are smart enough to realize college is mainly a bullshit hurdle to get over so they can get a bullshit job and that little of what they learn matters in that bullshit job. That a diploma is a checkbox and not an affirmation of intellectuality in most cases.
In Japan's heyday (late 1990s), college life was described similarly (modulo the Internet), and it was said that American college students worked hard to graduate successfully. So this can be a symptom of the US's economic success — such an irony.
College students in today's declining Japan are working harder than ever before, and they're complaining about their parents' (now grandparents?) generation's broken understanding of the reality of college life.
College students in today's declining Japan are working harder than ever before, and they're complaining about their parents' (now grandparents?) generation's broken understanding of the reality of college life.
Am I parsing this wrong? The perception is that Americans have _never_ worked hard to graduate successfully, including in the '80s. We were supposed to get beat by our Japanese betters because they were so studious!
They worked hard (long) once they entered the workforce. My understanding is that the college was considered as like a bachelor party.
It was their parents who worked really hard and they didn't go college. It was peak blue collar.
It was their parents who worked really hard and they didn't go college. It was peak blue collar.
As a college student, I think I can respond to this.
> Reading bores them, though. They are impatient to get through whatever burden of reading they have to, and move their eyes over the words just to get it done.
At least for me, it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it, especially for novels and literature. Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
Edit: note - we don't have any literary modules in my course - any reading would be voluntary.
> What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.
I distinctly remember being penalized for any insight that didn't fit marking criteria back in high school english lit. If ChatGPT-like writing is what'll get me to pass, so be it.
> Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.
Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs. This is very uni/course specific though
> Reading bores them, though. They are impatient to get through whatever burden of reading they have to, and move their eyes over the words just to get it done.
At least for me, it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it, especially for novels and literature. Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
Edit: note - we don't have any literary modules in my course - any reading would be voluntary.
> What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.
I distinctly remember being penalized for any insight that didn't fit marking criteria back in high school english lit. If ChatGPT-like writing is what'll get me to pass, so be it.
> Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.
Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs. This is very uni/course specific though
> At least for me, it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it, especially for novels and literature. Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
This reads as though the goal of reading is to bolster your career opportunities as a developer? If it's not connected to your career then it shouldn't be viewed that way, it should be viewed as a kind of leisure and the challenges/rewards involved should be compared to the alternatives there (i.e. is the investment in time of being able to understand more complex novels returning a level of personal fulfilment that makes it potentially a more rewarding focus than some more immediately gratifying leisure activity)
It may still be of very low value but viewing the prospect specifically as being damaging to your career opportunities seems like an incorrect perspective to be starting from.
This reads as though the goal of reading is to bolster your career opportunities as a developer? If it's not connected to your career then it shouldn't be viewed that way, it should be viewed as a kind of leisure and the challenges/rewards involved should be compared to the alternatives there (i.e. is the investment in time of being able to understand more complex novels returning a level of personal fulfilment that makes it potentially a more rewarding focus than some more immediately gratifying leisure activity)
It may still be of very low value but viewing the prospect specifically as being damaging to your career opportunities seems like an incorrect perspective to be starting from.
Seeing everything in an utilitarian pov frightens me. I'm a university student, I love reading, I love acting, I love spending my afternoons riding my bike to the seaside or to the tuscanian hills. Nothing of this is going to make me a better developer. But I can't imagine a world in which I don't read, in which I don't get to know people acting or working at the venue meeting other performers, or feeling connected to the Earth with flowers blooming and birds chirping
I would love to do that. In fact my first year was way more relaxed and closer to your experience. I would spend hours wandering the countryside on foot and traveling the country.
Now that graduation is inching closer with no financial backing, it's just not feasible to spend time on anything other than maximizing employability
Now that graduation is inching closer with no financial backing, it's just not feasible to spend time on anything other than maximizing employability
It makes me so sad how correct this is. I don’t know what the proper term for it is, but it’s the dynamic where everyone works 9 - 5, and then someone wants to get ahead so works an hour later, and then in 2 months everyone is working 9 - 6…until someone else wants to get ahead and starts working until 7. The competition is so stark and the perceived penalties for not meeting a base level of success are so unpleasant, we all need to descend to the most boring and lifeless versions of ourselves to match those who are naturally boring and lifeless.
Sounds like a version of the tragedy of the commons. Or maybe even the prisoner's dilemma, as in every individual chasing their narrow self-interest and making the matter worse for everyone instead of collaborating and making it better for everybody.
Just don’t do that? I’ve never had a problem leaving at 5. Been doing this for 2 decades now.
Live below your means, save enough money so that a year of unemployment won’t kill you, try to work on interesting problems, try to stay in the top quartile for output (You can definitely do this without staying past 5. At most companies you can do this working something closer to 9-1 if you really focus during that time), don’t be a dick, and don’t worry about the rest.
Live below your means, save enough money so that a year of unemployment won’t kill you, try to work on interesting problems, try to stay in the top quartile for output (You can definitely do this without staying past 5. At most companies you can do this working something closer to 9-1 if you really focus during that time), don’t be a dick, and don’t worry about the rest.
I don't disagree.
I think POVs in forums are often much more about framing a thing to justify your beliefs than actually hitting at your own personal implicit values (it's plausible the poster believes leisure is a waste of time and lives by that belief but I doubt it) so I wanted to stick with the original POV approach to highlight the ways it seemed incorrect.
I think POVs in forums are often much more about framing a thing to justify your beliefs than actually hitting at your own personal implicit values (it's plausible the poster believes leisure is a waste of time and lives by that belief but I doubt it) so I wanted to stick with the original POV approach to highlight the ways it seemed incorrect.
Wait until you work full-time then you understand it.
What I wanted to say, it is that it might happen in the future to not have time or will to do those things. Due to stress or long job hours (...) but the guy says that as a uni student he doesn't have the time because he prefers to focus on being a better developer. I read for pleasure especially at evening or at night. in those moments, especially when in the bed, I definitely wouldn't be coding
> I distinctly remember being penalized for any insight that didn't fit marking criteria back in high school english lit. If ChatGPT-like writing is what'll get me to pass, so be it.
I Can't Answer These Texas Standardized Test Questions About My Own Poems
> Oh, goody. I’m a benchmark. Only guess what? The test prep materials neglected to insert the stanza break. I texted him an image of how the poem appeared in the original publication. Problem one solved. But guess what else? I just put that stanza break in there because when I read it aloud (I’m a performance poet), I pause there. Note: that is not an option among the answers because no one ever asked me why I did it.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783650
I Can't Answer These Texas Standardized Test Questions About My Own Poems
> Oh, goody. I’m a benchmark. Only guess what? The test prep materials neglected to insert the stanza break. I texted him an image of how the poem appeared in the original publication. Problem one solved. But guess what else? I just put that stanza break in there because when I read it aloud (I’m a performance poet), I pause there. Note: that is not an option among the answers because no one ever asked me why I did it.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783650
It's hilarious to explain you can't be assed to read a novel for a class that is about literary analysis and then also say It scares me as well how little interest my peers have in actually learning.
Part of the idea of courses that aren't direct job skills is that you will have done it and learned from it.
Part of the idea of courses that aren't direct job skills is that you will have done it and learned from it.
This is nice when you have the time to sit down and enjoy literature at a leasurly pace. It's not nice when it's one of many obligations that comes with its own deadlines and tests.
In fairness, this is the standard university experience and has been for many decades. You either figure out how to balance your time and make the grades or you don’t.
Making the grade often has nothing to do with actually doing the reading. Why there are cram courses and distilled notes that students sell.
Sure, and making the grade often has nothing to do with getting the job (e.g. just because you have a CS degree doesn't mean you're a shoe-in for that dev job you applied to). But since tests and degrees are simply indicators, not absolute proof, that you're qualified, people fudge tend to things every step of the way; it's turtles all the way down.
Oh we don't get novels to read for class in university. Any reading would be voluntary
The article you are responding to was about a professor who is assigning his students to read Dostoevsky.
Well, you can't expect him to have read it!
> When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
If you think of education as trying to lead people into being whole humans, seems like literature and philosophy (properly taught) are some of most critical subjects.
If you think of education as trying to lead people into being whole humans, seems like literature and philosophy (properly taught) are some of most critical subjects.
I want this to be true, my arts degree says I even put my money where my mouth is, but university has largely become viewed as vocational training. You do it not to become whole, you do it to become employable.
I'll do that when I can be confident in my ability to afford food. Being a "whole human" just isn't a priority when you might literally become homeless
This feeling will never go away because it’s not caused by circumstances, it’s caused by anxiety.
You’re a student ostensibly studying computer science at University. Taking a few hours a week to stop a smell the roses has zero chance of being the thing that pushes you into homelessness.
When you start working the anxiety won’t go away. You’ll always have the next thing to worry about. What if I lose this job—I only have 6 months of savings. Then you get married and it becomes—if I lose my job my spouse will divorce me. You have a kid and it becomes “Sorry honey I have to work late. Dinner with the family isn’t a priority when the kids could literally become homeless if I lose my job and we can’t afford good schools.”
You can’t fix the anxiety by accomplishing the next goal. It’s never going to be enough. You have to learn to live with some uncertainty or you’ll end up miserable.
Also from a more practical perspective, there are advantages to being a more well rounded person. The best programmer is rarely the highest paid. Soft skills are at least as important. Being a well rounded human is a big part of those soft skills.
I’m not saying you necessarily need to be well versed in literary fiction. But having a wide breadth of knowledge comes in handy.
You’re a student ostensibly studying computer science at University. Taking a few hours a week to stop a smell the roses has zero chance of being the thing that pushes you into homelessness.
When you start working the anxiety won’t go away. You’ll always have the next thing to worry about. What if I lose this job—I only have 6 months of savings. Then you get married and it becomes—if I lose my job my spouse will divorce me. You have a kid and it becomes “Sorry honey I have to work late. Dinner with the family isn’t a priority when the kids could literally become homeless if I lose my job and we can’t afford good schools.”
You can’t fix the anxiety by accomplishing the next goal. It’s never going to be enough. You have to learn to live with some uncertainty or you’ll end up miserable.
Also from a more practical perspective, there are advantages to being a more well rounded person. The best programmer is rarely the highest paid. Soft skills are at least as important. Being a well rounded human is a big part of those soft skills.
I’m not saying you necessarily need to be well versed in literary fiction. But having a wide breadth of knowledge comes in handy.
Sadly this is true. I make about $200k/yr gross, have a working software engineer for a wife, and have enough in retirement that I could “coast” on contributions for the next 30 years and be fine in retirement. I still can’t be rid of the financial anxiety I started with. My childhood involved a homeless shelter, my college years included struggling to make rent and buy food, and those experiences forever colored how I see and treat money.
>You can’t fix the anxiety by accomplishing the next goal. It’s never going to be enough. You have to learn to live with some uncertainty or you’ll end up miserable.
There is definitely a difference in quality of life due to less worrying once you or your network have sufficient assets and passive income such that short term volatility does not mean you or your kids go hungry/shelter-less.
There is definitely a difference in quality of life due to less worrying once you or your network have sufficient assets and passive income such that short term volatility does not mean you or your kids go hungry/shelter-less.
> At least for me, it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it, especially for novels and literature. Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
The disconnect here is that your professors are assigning you work like this because the purpose of a university education is to broaden your horizons, challenge you, and force you to think about _how to think._
The fact that you're treating it like trade school is your problem, not the university's.
> I distinctly remember being penalized for any insight that didn't fit marking criteria back in high school english lit.
Good for you. High school writing has nothing to do with university-level papers.
> Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs. Some lecturers are also just incompetent with barely any understanding of what they're teaching in the first place...
Your issue, again, is that you're arrogantly assuming you don't have anything to learn from things you personally haven't prioritized. A major role of a university education is to beat that idea out of you by showing you how wrong you are. Pity it isn't sticking.
> ...though this probably wouldn't be as big of a problem in better universities like Ivy Leagues where the author works
What the actual fuck, dude? Ivy League? Right in the second paragraph: "I teach at a regional public university in the US."
I went into this article kind of annoyed at the stereotyping of "these kids today," but way to go reinforcing the article's points. Damn.
The disconnect here is that your professors are assigning you work like this because the purpose of a university education is to broaden your horizons, challenge you, and force you to think about _how to think._
The fact that you're treating it like trade school is your problem, not the university's.
> I distinctly remember being penalized for any insight that didn't fit marking criteria back in high school english lit.
Good for you. High school writing has nothing to do with university-level papers.
> Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs. Some lecturers are also just incompetent with barely any understanding of what they're teaching in the first place...
Your issue, again, is that you're arrogantly assuming you don't have anything to learn from things you personally haven't prioritized. A major role of a university education is to beat that idea out of you by showing you how wrong you are. Pity it isn't sticking.
> ...though this probably wouldn't be as big of a problem in better universities like Ivy Leagues where the author works
What the actual fuck, dude? Ivy League? Right in the second paragraph: "I teach at a regional public university in the US."
I went into this article kind of annoyed at the stereotyping of "these kids today," but way to go reinforcing the article's points. Damn.
The disconnect here is that your professors are assigning you work like this because the purpose of a university education is to broaden your horizons, challenge you, and force you to think about _how to think._
this would be fine if it didn't cost as much as a new car and my career did not depend on it. I can broaden my horizons for free at library
this would be fine if it didn't cost as much as a new car and my career did not depend on it. I can broaden my horizons for free at library
> The fact that you're treating it like trade school is your problem, not the university's.
When (for many people) going to college almost necessarily means accruing 5-figure to 6-figure debt at the infancy of their careers, they sure as shit better have some sort of marketable skill to justify and remedy that debt coming out of it.
I understand the sentiment of higher education being useful for broadening one's horizons, challenging you, teaching you how to think etc; but you should be arguing in the _positive_ for these things to be available to everyone without a paywall.
When (for many people) going to college almost necessarily means accruing 5-figure to 6-figure debt at the infancy of their careers, they sure as shit better have some sort of marketable skill to justify and remedy that debt coming out of it.
I understand the sentiment of higher education being useful for broadening one's horizons, challenging you, teaching you how to think etc; but you should be arguing in the _positive_ for these things to be available to everyone without a paywall.
Federal loans are enough to pay for a state school (especially if you do your general education at a community college). Income based repayment means you’ll never pay more than 10% of your discretionary income for 20 years (income above 1.5x the poverty level for your family size). If you never make more than 1.5x the poverty level, you’ll never pay back a dime.
College is financially attainable for just about anyone.
College is financially attainable for just about anyone.
> Income based repayment means you’ll never pay more than 10% of your discretionary income for 20 years
So a 10% hit to your income for at least 20 years isn't significant? What percentage of someone's student debt works under income based repayment?
> If you never make more than 1.5x the poverty level, you’ll never pay back a dime.
So... your suggestion is to live just above poverty so you won't have to pay student loans?
> Federal loans are enough to pay for a state school (especially if you do your general education at a community college)
Sure, there exists ways to go about getting a degree which doesn't _have_ to have a massive financial burden for decades, but what percentage of degree holders (Or, those who have student loans) took this path? Is this a pragmatically fair expectation for 17/18 year olds to make?
How do you resolve the "while the total average balance (including private loan debt) may be as high as $41,618"[0]
[0]: https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics#:~:te...
So a 10% hit to your income for at least 20 years isn't significant? What percentage of someone's student debt works under income based repayment?
> If you never make more than 1.5x the poverty level, you’ll never pay back a dime.
So... your suggestion is to live just above poverty so you won't have to pay student loans?
> Federal loans are enough to pay for a state school (especially if you do your general education at a community college)
Sure, there exists ways to go about getting a degree which doesn't _have_ to have a massive financial burden for decades, but what percentage of degree holders (Or, those who have student loans) took this path? Is this a pragmatically fair expectation for 17/18 year olds to make?
How do you resolve the "while the total average balance (including private loan debt) may be as high as $41,618"[0]
[0]: https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics#:~:te...
>So a 10% hit to your income for at least 20 years isn't significant?
It's not a 10% hit to your income. It's 10% of your income over 1.5x the poverty limit. And it's capped at whatever the payments would be under a 10 year repayment plan.
And it's not at least 20 years, it's at most 20 years. If you make more $80k or so you'll pay less under the standard 10 year plan, so you'll pay that. Which for $40k in deb is something like $450 a month (about 6.75% of your income).
>So... your suggestion is to live just above poverty so you won't have to pay student loans?
That's clearly what I said...of course it's not. The point is that worst case scenario you make under 1.5x the poverty limit you make nothing. If you make a little more than that you pay a 10% tax on the money over that (up to about $60k then it goes down).
>Sure, there exists ways to go about getting a degree which doesn't _have_ to have a massive financial burden for decades, but what percentage of degree holders (Or, those who have student loans) took this path? Is this a pragmatically fair expectation for 17/18 year olds to make?
In 2020 around 6% of students took out private student loans. And private student loans represent only around 7% of all student loan debt, so most of them don't have a massive financial burden because they qualify for income based repayment.
>How do you resolve the "while the total average balance (including private loan debt) may be as high as $41,618"[0]
The vast majority of that is federal, which qualifies for IBR, so isn't a massive burden. Don't take out private loans unless you're going to an Ivy League school, or med school.
It's not a 10% hit to your income. It's 10% of your income over 1.5x the poverty limit. And it's capped at whatever the payments would be under a 10 year repayment plan.
And it's not at least 20 years, it's at most 20 years. If you make more $80k or so you'll pay less under the standard 10 year plan, so you'll pay that. Which for $40k in deb is something like $450 a month (about 6.75% of your income).
>So... your suggestion is to live just above poverty so you won't have to pay student loans?
That's clearly what I said...of course it's not. The point is that worst case scenario you make under 1.5x the poverty limit you make nothing. If you make a little more than that you pay a 10% tax on the money over that (up to about $60k then it goes down).
>Sure, there exists ways to go about getting a degree which doesn't _have_ to have a massive financial burden for decades, but what percentage of degree holders (Or, those who have student loans) took this path? Is this a pragmatically fair expectation for 17/18 year olds to make?
In 2020 around 6% of students took out private student loans. And private student loans represent only around 7% of all student loan debt, so most of them don't have a massive financial burden because they qualify for income based repayment.
>How do you resolve the "while the total average balance (including private loan debt) may be as high as $41,618"[0]
The vast majority of that is federal, which qualifies for IBR, so isn't a massive burden. Don't take out private loans unless you're going to an Ivy League school, or med school.
I simply don't agree that an IBR loan is a good enough deal to not justify one needing useful and employable skills coming out of higher education.
The utility of a degree, from what I've seen, _does_ end up being better than the accrued debt on average, but the distribution of these cases (I simply imagine) leaves enough people on the margin to be harmful.
The utility of a degree, from what I've seen, _does_ end up being better than the accrued debt on average, but the distribution of these cases (I simply imagine) leaves enough people on the margin to be harmful.
If you don’t have family money, you probably need to have a plan for what you’re going to do as a career even if college is free.
My point is that whether they need a marketable skill or not has very little to do with student loans. Provided they go to a state school.
If you borrow $40k to go to a state school, the most you’re going to pay is something like $450 a month for 10 years. Any degree no matter how vocationally useless will allow you to make more than $450 a month extra than you otherwise would have.
There are of course cases where this doesn’t hold, but you’d almost have to try for it not to be worth it. The program is good enough that I think we’ve mostly reached the point of diminishing returns, and there are other things we could spend additional money on with higher ROIs.
My point is that whether they need a marketable skill or not has very little to do with student loans. Provided they go to a state school.
If you borrow $40k to go to a state school, the most you’re going to pay is something like $450 a month for 10 years. Any degree no matter how vocationally useless will allow you to make more than $450 a month extra than you otherwise would have.
There are of course cases where this doesn’t hold, but you’d almost have to try for it not to be worth it. The program is good enough that I think we’ve mostly reached the point of diminishing returns, and there are other things we could spend additional money on with higher ROIs.
Completely false. I went to one of the cheapest accredited colleges around, I received the maximum pell grant, and my federal loans covered about 65% of the tuition. I worked full time through college to cover the remaining tuition and books.
If we're using today’s numbers, max Pell Grant is $7,400 per year. You can borrow $5,500 in federal loans as a freshman, $6,500 as a junior, and $7,500 as junior/senior. So the average is $6,750 (independent students and student's whose parent can't qualify for a plus loan can take out more).
That's $14,150 per year. Let's take one of the highest cost of living states--california. Cal state LA: tuition and mandatory fees: $7,160, books: $1,054.
That's about $6k a year more than you need for tuition and books. Obviously this isn't going to cover all of your living expenses, so you're going to need to work or live with family.
But if you're an independent student, with the larger loan limits, you could get close if you live really cheap.
That's $14,150 per year. Let's take one of the highest cost of living states--california. Cal state LA: tuition and mandatory fees: $7,160, books: $1,054.
That's about $6k a year more than you need for tuition and books. Obviously this isn't going to cover all of your living expenses, so you're going to need to work or live with family.
But if you're an independent student, with the larger loan limits, you could get close if you live really cheap.
https://www.newsweek.com/student-loan-repayment-income-drive...
> The Trump administration has gotten rid of applications for income-driven repayment plans from the federal aid website.
The change occurs as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked income-driven repayment plans in its February ruling. That means former President Joe Biden's SAVE plans and PSLF options are no longer available.
> The Trump administration has gotten rid of applications for income-driven repayment plans from the federal aid website.
The change occurs as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked income-driven repayment plans in its February ruling. That means former President Joe Biden's SAVE plans and PSLF options are no longer available.
The numbers I quoted are still valid. What changed primarily is that it went back to 20 years. Up from 10.
“ Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) reopened the online income-driven repayment (IDR) plan and loan consolidation applications for borrowers. The application was temporarily paused to comply with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction issued last month, which directed the Department to cease implementation of the Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan and parts of other IDR plans. Because the online application incorporated provisions subject to the injunction, it was necessary to revise the form, making it unavailable to borrowers in the interim. Paper loan consolidation applications were available to borrowers during that time.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-...
“ Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) reopened the online income-driven repayment (IDR) plan and loan consolidation applications for borrowers. The application was temporarily paused to comply with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction issued last month, which directed the Department to cease implementation of the Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan and parts of other IDR plans. Because the online application incorporated provisions subject to the injunction, it was necessary to revise the form, making it unavailable to borrowers in the interim. Paper loan consolidation applications were available to borrowers during that time.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-...
There's so much to unpack here. I'll start from the bottom.
> better universities like Ivy Leagues where the author works
The author gives their background in the second paragraph of the article (did you read it?): "I teach at a regional public university in the US. Our students are average on just about any dimension you care to name"
> Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs.
a) It appears that no one is reading the docs, as the author discussed at length (did you read it?)
b) A lecture is always faster than reading. A lecture is cliff notes. A lecture is the person who knows more than you teaching you the most important bits of the docs.
> it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it
You stated that the lecture was too slow so you just read the docs. Here you state that there's not enough time and benefit to reading. Which is it?
> It scares me as well how little interest my peers have in actually learning
Do you see that you're demonstrating that same disinterest? Reading isn't worth your time. Lectures are too slow and the professors are dumb anyway. Etc.
> Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position
This implies that there is some educational medium by which you are so deeply focused and involved in, that the author is unaware of, pointed directly at CV building and internship/job getting, that you simply don't have time for the lectures or books that the author's class covers. Is that correct? What is it? How much time are you spending on an average day CV building?
> can I really afford to waste my time like this?
Sweet summer child. You are a college student. You have all the time in the world.
Your post here, if anything, corroborates the author's perspective.
> better universities like Ivy Leagues where the author works
The author gives their background in the second paragraph of the article (did you read it?): "I teach at a regional public university in the US. Our students are average on just about any dimension you care to name"
> Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs.
a) It appears that no one is reading the docs, as the author discussed at length (did you read it?)
b) A lecture is always faster than reading. A lecture is cliff notes. A lecture is the person who knows more than you teaching you the most important bits of the docs.
> it's not that reading bores me - there just isn't enough time and benefit to it
You stated that the lecture was too slow so you just read the docs. Here you state that there's not enough time and benefit to reading. Which is it?
> It scares me as well how little interest my peers have in actually learning
Do you see that you're demonstrating that same disinterest? Reading isn't worth your time. Lectures are too slow and the professors are dumb anyway. Etc.
> Literary books aren't going in my CV, nor providing any insight into how to write better code. When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position
This implies that there is some educational medium by which you are so deeply focused and involved in, that the author is unaware of, pointed directly at CV building and internship/job getting, that you simply don't have time for the lectures or books that the author's class covers. Is that correct? What is it? How much time are you spending on an average day CV building?
> can I really afford to waste my time like this?
Sweet summer child. You are a college student. You have all the time in the world.
Your post here, if anything, corroborates the author's perspective.
As a college student, feel like I haven’t met any college student with “all the time in the world” as the people say we have lol. Most of my friends who graduated feel like they have more free time after graduating than in college
That’s only because they got better at time management.
The average college student has almost a month off in December, nearly 3 months off in the summer, a week off for thanksgiving, a week off for spring break, and almost nothing to do for the first 2 weeks of each semester.
That’s nearly 6 months of nothing but free time.
People are just remembering how stressful it gets at exam time and near the end of the semester when projects are so and forgetting how much free time they had during the rest of the year.
The average college student has almost a month off in December, nearly 3 months off in the summer, a week off for thanksgiving, a week off for spring break, and almost nothing to do for the first 2 weeks of each semester.
That’s nearly 6 months of nothing but free time.
People are just remembering how stressful it gets at exam time and near the end of the semester when projects are so and forgetting how much free time they had during the rest of the year.
> Well, most lectures just aren't very helpful. They move slower than if we just read the docs. Some lecturers are also just incompetent with barely any understanding of what they're teaching in the first place - though this probably wouldn't be as big of a problem in better universities like Ivy Leagues where the author works
Memories of my degree 20 years ago. We didn't have (many) pre-recorded videos of lectures available to watch whenever we wanted at whatever speed we wanted, the way we do now.
Now there's a good range of lectures given away for free, I'm not sure even the top 10% of lecturers (beyond the best individuals in the world on whichever topic) are adding much value — In theory one could interrupt the lecture to clarify a point, but that's also a thing one can often do alone with the internet.
And that's for the best lecturers. We had some good teachers, but also some bad ones.
The C lectures were fantastic, the practical security sessions were fun (started with ~ "if you've already hacked this WiFi box, please log out so I can show everyone else how to break into it"), etc.
For the bad ones… there was one in my final year where I was using my laptop to record the whole session at 44 kHz (audio only), and the lecturer claimed that motion capture recordings couldn't go for more than a few minutes because that would be "several megabytes" of data. There was another who was giving us an example of formal methods, but they got the proof wrong and didn't notice (and had a voice that meant nobody cared). Another had an impenetrable accent, I might have understood a total of two words in the entire lecture, though I could at least follow the written material projected on the screen.
Memories of my degree 20 years ago. We didn't have (many) pre-recorded videos of lectures available to watch whenever we wanted at whatever speed we wanted, the way we do now.
Now there's a good range of lectures given away for free, I'm not sure even the top 10% of lecturers (beyond the best individuals in the world on whichever topic) are adding much value — In theory one could interrupt the lecture to clarify a point, but that's also a thing one can often do alone with the internet.
And that's for the best lecturers. We had some good teachers, but also some bad ones.
The C lectures were fantastic, the practical security sessions were fun (started with ~ "if you've already hacked this WiFi box, please log out so I can show everyone else how to break into it"), etc.
For the bad ones… there was one in my final year where I was using my laptop to record the whole session at 44 kHz (audio only), and the lecturer claimed that motion capture recordings couldn't go for more than a few minutes because that would be "several megabytes" of data. There was another who was giving us an example of formal methods, but they got the proof wrong and didn't notice (and had a voice that meant nobody cared). Another had an impenetrable accent, I might have understood a total of two words in the entire lecture, though I could at least follow the written material projected on the screen.
>When 1200 people compete for 1 open internship position, can I really afford to waste my time like this?
The ratio of internships to qualified students is far better than 1:1200. You don’t need to be in the top tenth of a percent to get an internship.
Worst case scenario you don’t get the internship you want and it takes you an extra year or 2 to get the job you wanted.
Take some time to enjoy your youth without worrying about min maxing everything. You’re never going to have fewer responsibilities than you do now.
>slower than if we just read the docs
Don’t take classes where the content of lectures can be replaced by reading the docs. Take theoretical classes. Learn the practical stuff on your own.
Also seek out the experts. Ask questions. Spend time with them. Unless you do to grad school, you’ll never have this kind of access to experts again.
The ratio of internships to qualified students is far better than 1:1200. You don’t need to be in the top tenth of a percent to get an internship.
Worst case scenario you don’t get the internship you want and it takes you an extra year or 2 to get the job you wanted.
Take some time to enjoy your youth without worrying about min maxing everything. You’re never going to have fewer responsibilities than you do now.
>slower than if we just read the docs
Don’t take classes where the content of lectures can be replaced by reading the docs. Take theoretical classes. Learn the practical stuff on your own.
Also seek out the experts. Ask questions. Spend time with them. Unless you do to grad school, you’ll never have this kind of access to experts again.
> The ratio of internships to qualified students is far better than 1:1200.
To be fair, for a person with several years of industry experience it feels like the ratio of applicants to openings for tech jobs really is some absurdly high number - high enough to where you can be out of experience-appropriate work for years, plural.
I don't know if the overall market can generalize to university internships however, which may be the disconnect.
However, I remember one time in the recent past where I was offered to interview for a position that was designed for recent graduates with no industry experience. They offered this to me knowing I had graduated long ago and already had industry work for a while. My conclusion was that after a whole two months of interviewing candidates, they simply could not find any recent graduates qualified enough for their own recent graduates opening.
I did feel some guilt being offered that position knowing it was supposed to have gone towards someone with far fewer opportunities to get hired than me. I don't know if this is an indication of the state of universities, recent graduates, hiring managers who write up the postings and don't know what they actually want, the job market in general, or some other factor I haven't considered...
To be fair, for a person with several years of industry experience it feels like the ratio of applicants to openings for tech jobs really is some absurdly high number - high enough to where you can be out of experience-appropriate work for years, plural.
I don't know if the overall market can generalize to university internships however, which may be the disconnect.
However, I remember one time in the recent past where I was offered to interview for a position that was designed for recent graduates with no industry experience. They offered this to me knowing I had graduated long ago and already had industry work for a while. My conclusion was that after a whole two months of interviewing candidates, they simply could not find any recent graduates qualified enough for their own recent graduates opening.
I did feel some guilt being offered that position knowing it was supposed to have gone towards someone with far fewer opportunities to get hired than me. I don't know if this is an indication of the state of universities, recent graduates, hiring managers who write up the postings and don't know what they actually want, the job market in general, or some other factor I haven't considered...
Oh there really are thousands of people that apply to each job. But that’s because people who have a hard time finding a job stay in the market longer. Think of it as if there are 1000 permanently unemployed people who will apply for any job opening.
But if you look at unemployment and underemployment rates, it’s clear that the ratio is nowhere near as what it feels like just from looking at the number of people who apply to a job.
We’re in a job market downturn. It is definitely possible to be out of work for years.
But unless you’re in the bottom say 20% of developers that’s not likely to happen.
Even after the dotcom boom tech unemployment only got to 6.5% or so.
But if you look at unemployment and underemployment rates, it’s clear that the ratio is nowhere near as what it feels like just from looking at the number of people who apply to a job.
We’re in a job market downturn. It is definitely possible to be out of work for years.
But unless you’re in the bottom say 20% of developers that’s not likely to happen.
Even after the dotcom boom tech unemployment only got to 6.5% or so.
If you were in academia for a while does that put you in the bottom 20% of developers automatically?
I doubt it.
Looking at what you wrote about not seeing benefits of anything that doesn't directly contribute to your job fitness - please read this:
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are...
It isn't a waste of time, I promise.
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are...
It isn't a waste of time, I promise.
the author doesn't work at an ivy league, they work at an average school (your error here is beautifully ironic...)
Yeah I misread by clicking into their profile
> I'm a tenured philosophy professor with an Ivy League PhD.
> I'm a tenured philosophy professor with an Ivy League PhD.
The Ivy league isn't teaching Dostoevsky any differently than from an 'average' school, and have a significant number of legacy and preferential admissions who wouldn't otherwise pass the academic standards that everybody else had to.
That's not the point at all though. The point is that the author is talking about how college students can't read and comprehend material, and the student refuting clearly didn't read or comprehend the material.
the aptitude of the students and general motivation is different, though.
People are lazy.
American students are mostly rich by any global standard and very, very lazy. Doesn’t matter a huge amount as they don’t matter — they will amount to nothing anyway. The States imports enough talent to make up for the lacuna. In the meantime, their parents pump cash into what will become their Alma Maters.
When I went to an Ivy League US university as a grad student I was astonished at the remedial nature of undergraduate courses. Content that students in my country mastered at 13 needed to be spoon-fed to US students that were 5-6 years older.
Even back then almost nobody failed a course in the US. It was a major deal to fail someone. I came from a culture where the standard was absolute. No curve. Get below z% and you spent the Summer getting ready for a retake. Fail that, and you were out.
Education was paid by the State so it wasn’t a business. Profs could fail 20 - 40% of a class and often did.
It is astonishing that a Philosophy prof is seeing this. Who the fuck does philosophy at Uni and can’t be arsed to read the recommended texts?
He/she is a full Prof. Almost impossible to fire. So fail the lot of those entitled, lazy, bums I say. Enjoy that tenure!
American students are mostly rich by any global standard and very, very lazy. Doesn’t matter a huge amount as they don’t matter — they will amount to nothing anyway. The States imports enough talent to make up for the lacuna. In the meantime, their parents pump cash into what will become their Alma Maters.
When I went to an Ivy League US university as a grad student I was astonished at the remedial nature of undergraduate courses. Content that students in my country mastered at 13 needed to be spoon-fed to US students that were 5-6 years older.
Even back then almost nobody failed a course in the US. It was a major deal to fail someone. I came from a culture where the standard was absolute. No curve. Get below z% and you spent the Summer getting ready for a retake. Fail that, and you were out.
Education was paid by the State so it wasn’t a business. Profs could fail 20 - 40% of a class and often did.
It is astonishing that a Philosophy prof is seeing this. Who the fuck does philosophy at Uni and can’t be arsed to read the recommended texts?
He/she is a full Prof. Almost impossible to fire. So fail the lot of those entitled, lazy, bums I say. Enjoy that tenure!
I graduated from top university. I wasn't a particularly bright student, so I had to study very hard in order to pass classes. Just like you say, professor could fail a third of the class and that was normal. Having a weekend off meant that I was forgetting about something.
After graduation, I stopped learning. The older I get, the less point I see in endless grinding. Sometimes I watch some pop-sci shows on YouTube, but pretty much without any actual knowledge retention. At my work I do the bare minimum not to get fired.
I wonder what does this all mean. On one hand I think that if I worked hard again I could achieve great things. But on the other... god damn, I was constantly depressed as a student. Now that I spend my time just dicking around, at least I don't want to kill myself.
After graduation, I stopped learning. The older I get, the less point I see in endless grinding. Sometimes I watch some pop-sci shows on YouTube, but pretty much without any actual knowledge retention. At my work I do the bare minimum not to get fired.
I wonder what does this all mean. On one hand I think that if I worked hard again I could achieve great things. But on the other... god damn, I was constantly depressed as a student. Now that I spend my time just dicking around, at least I don't want to kill myself.
It has happened to me, I don’t need to look at following generations. I was an avid reader in my teenage years, I was devouring anything Crichton, Grisham, Cussler or Robin Cook were putting out (hardly Dostoevsky but I was an average teen).
Now I devote my life to work and my 3yo daughter and when I have ~1h for myself on a working day (after she’s gone to bed) I just mindlessly scroll on my phone, and when I’ve tried to read a book I just lost any kind of attention span I had and I realised that I’ve “read” a couple of pages but I wouldn’t be able to say what they were about because my mind was elsewhere. So I end up reading a lot of text on any given day but never literature, it’s either code, emails, Slack messages, technical docs or websites…
Now I devote my life to work and my 3yo daughter and when I have ~1h for myself on a working day (after she’s gone to bed) I just mindlessly scroll on my phone, and when I’ve tried to read a book I just lost any kind of attention span I had and I realised that I’ve “read” a couple of pages but I wouldn’t be able to say what they were about because my mind was elsewhere. So I end up reading a lot of text on any given day but never literature, it’s either code, emails, Slack messages, technical docs or websites…
I had to retrain myself to read fiction for pleasure. This is what worked for me:
Read a paragraph. If you feel like the info isn't going in, restart the paragraph, but this time slow down enough so you can sound out the words in your head. If the meaning still doesn't go in, restart and actually read the words aloud. If that still doesn't work, get some sleep and try again tomorrow.
Read a paragraph. If you feel like the info isn't going in, restart the paragraph, but this time slow down enough so you can sound out the words in your head. If the meaning still doesn't go in, restart and actually read the words aloud. If that still doesn't work, get some sleep and try again tomorrow.
Good advice.
I've also had to "relearn" how to read after a decade of attention-span-killing apps.
The method I used worked well but it's slow at first. Read a paragraph then stop and have a conversation with yourself about what just happened. If that's still too hard, do it every sentence and build up.
Eventually move on to every page and eventually every chapter.
Think of it like weightlifting: You were a an olympic lifter but you had an accident that left you immobile for years or even decades. Now you're getting back to it. Don't get down on yourself for not deadlifting like an olympian right away. Start with light weights and focus on form.
The method I used worked well but it's slow at first. Read a paragraph then stop and have a conversation with yourself about what just happened. If that's still too hard, do it every sentence and build up.
Eventually move on to every page and eventually every chapter.
Think of it like weightlifting: You were a an olympic lifter but you had an accident that left you immobile for years or even decades. Now you're getting back to it. Don't get down on yourself for not deadlifting like an olympian right away. Start with light weights and focus on form.
> Read a paragraph then stop and have a conversation with yourself about what just happened.
I like that approach, as it combines the training of attention span and memorizing.
I've come to the painful realization that we are not only losing our attention span --our capacity to concentrate--, we are also concurrently losing our deep memorizing abilities --our capacity to retain the information we managed to intake--. So it's really a double whammy effect, making it even more difficult to revert.
I like that approach, as it combines the training of attention span and memorizing.
I've come to the painful realization that we are not only losing our attention span --our capacity to concentrate--, we are also concurrently losing our deep memorizing abilities --our capacity to retain the information we managed to intake--. So it's really a double whammy effect, making it even more difficult to revert.
All the progress I have made in that direction came from one thing: more free time. The amount I read is directly proportional to that.
Perhaps students don't do all these things because they're busy as hell trying to keep up with life's endless demands.
Perhaps students don't do all these things because they're busy as hell trying to keep up with life's endless demands.
I have a few thoughts, so I’m just going to write them out and see where they all go. I went to school in the US, so everything here applies for the US.
- Credentialism isn’t a secret. Students attend university not to learn, but to get a credential. The only way to get said credential is to get good grades, and there are lots of ways to get good grades. When I studied chemical engineering, it was an open secret that everyone was cheating. The professors didn’t care so long as it appeared that you weren’t. People readily took easy classes or sought easy professors. Many people looked to get accommodations that they didn’t need so that tests would be easier. I don’t hate accommodations, I had a few.
- This professor that authored this post is complaining that students don’t have original thoughts. For undergraduates, classes are primarily about competency. Having an original thought is really hard work. You have to have a breadth of knowledge in a field that can’t be attained in an undergraduate course.
- I hate to blame technology. Our phones and computers are some of the most valuable tools that we have. I love to read. My parents went out of their way to make sure that my siblings and I could all read well, and we weren’t allowed to watch television. TikTok is more fun than reading. Phones are more fun than reading. I don’t blame people for using them over reading.
The state of education and reading in America is a travesty. I don’t have any solutions.
- Credentialism isn’t a secret. Students attend university not to learn, but to get a credential. The only way to get said credential is to get good grades, and there are lots of ways to get good grades. When I studied chemical engineering, it was an open secret that everyone was cheating. The professors didn’t care so long as it appeared that you weren’t. People readily took easy classes or sought easy professors. Many people looked to get accommodations that they didn’t need so that tests would be easier. I don’t hate accommodations, I had a few.
- This professor that authored this post is complaining that students don’t have original thoughts. For undergraduates, classes are primarily about competency. Having an original thought is really hard work. You have to have a breadth of knowledge in a field that can’t be attained in an undergraduate course.
- I hate to blame technology. Our phones and computers are some of the most valuable tools that we have. I love to read. My parents went out of their way to make sure that my siblings and I could all read well, and we weren’t allowed to watch television. TikTok is more fun than reading. Phones are more fun than reading. I don’t blame people for using them over reading.
The state of education and reading in America is a travesty. I don’t have any solutions.
>This professor that authored this post is complaining that students don’t have original thoughts. For undergraduates, classes are primarily about competency. Having an original thought is really hard work. You have to have a breadth of knowledge in a field that can’t be attained in an undergraduate course.
It's honestly insane to imagine not expecting an undergraduate to answer a simple question asking for an original thought about a simple topic. The Notes from the Underground example is doing exactly this. "Original enough to be publishable" is not the same as "original". For the latter, it just means that the student thought about a question and gave their own answer rather than repeating some talking point that an internet search or ChatGPT query produced.
It's honestly insane to imagine not expecting an undergraduate to answer a simple question asking for an original thought about a simple topic. The Notes from the Underground example is doing exactly this. "Original enough to be publishable" is not the same as "original". For the latter, it just means that the student thought about a question and gave their own answer rather than repeating some talking point that an internet search or ChatGPT query produced.
You're correct. But I think that it is still difficult to make an argument that is original enough to make a professor happy.
I think most professors are plenty happy with something that shows a bit of thought and analysis. They're not giving PhD quals, we're talking undergrad coursework here.
I'm glad I completed my bachelor's before ChatGPT existed. Now in my master's program, I find myself increasingly dependent on AI. It's gotten to a point where professors grade using AI, so no brain-to-brain exchange is happening — just AI to AI.
> so no brain-to-brain exchange is happening — just AI to AI.
Rubbish in, rubbish out. Just increasing entropy, a day at a time..
Rubbish in, rubbish out. Just increasing entropy, a day at a time..
While reading this I had an idea.
First, the (widely known) problem that I thought about which inspired the idea: basically, how can you maintain academic standards for the class you are teaching, when so few of the students are really prepared to be successful.
Sure, you can just keep the standards high/static, fight cheating the best you can, and fail most of the students until you get fired. You could try to teach all the preliminary material yourself, trying to make up for years of poor education, but that's probably too much for the time you have and wastes the time of students already prepared.
But how about, instead, having a placement exam on Day 1? A qualifier, if you will. It would test a representative set of knowledge you should already have in order to be successful. The students who don't pass are dropped without judgement, and that's it. Nobody's time is wasted. You can move quickly through a wait-list if there is one, and few students will find themselves with a failing grade halfway through the course.
Thoughts?
First, the (widely known) problem that I thought about which inspired the idea: basically, how can you maintain academic standards for the class you are teaching, when so few of the students are really prepared to be successful.
Sure, you can just keep the standards high/static, fight cheating the best you can, and fail most of the students until you get fired. You could try to teach all the preliminary material yourself, trying to make up for years of poor education, but that's probably too much for the time you have and wastes the time of students already prepared.
But how about, instead, having a placement exam on Day 1? A qualifier, if you will. It would test a representative set of knowledge you should already have in order to be successful. The students who don't pass are dropped without judgement, and that's it. Nobody's time is wasted. You can move quickly through a wait-list if there is one, and few students will find themselves with a failing grade halfway through the course.
Thoughts?
Entry level courses are suppose to provide the perquisite background knowledge. You cannot take Data Structures until you've taken Computer Science 1 & 2. If students do not learn programming basics in Computer Science 1 & 2 they should be failed, where they can either retake the class or move to something that better aligns with their abilities and interest. The introductory classes serve to weed out the students that will not perform well in the department. Every department has these.
At my university (15 years ago), less than 1/4 of the people that started Computer Science 1 ended up starting Data Structures, but over 90% of the students that started Data Structures graduated from the department.
My thoughts? Utilize these introductory courses to set the standards expected from students, and expect a lot of freshmen to drop out. Additionally, I do put some blame on high schools for not teaching students fundamental skills like how to take good notes, how to read books, how to write sentences, and how to sit still for an entire lecture. If the standard that college students are educated to falls, then that blame belongs to the colleges.
At my university (15 years ago), less than 1/4 of the people that started Computer Science 1 ended up starting Data Structures, but over 90% of the students that started Data Structures graduated from the department.
My thoughts? Utilize these introductory courses to set the standards expected from students, and expect a lot of freshmen to drop out. Additionally, I do put some blame on high schools for not teaching students fundamental skills like how to take good notes, how to read books, how to write sentences, and how to sit still for an entire lecture. If the standard that college students are educated to falls, then that blame belongs to the colleges.
You're kinda ignoring my point though - as a teacher (if I was), there is no way for me to unilaterally control what students have learned in those prerequisite classes. And clearly that's not working. Students entering my hypothetical classroom are coming in with insufficient knowledge to be successful. What can I alone, right now, do about it in my class?
Sure, I agree it's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed holistically, but I also need a plan for what to do in my classroom right now with these particular students. And I don't feel good about either passing those who haven't learned the material or failing 80% of the class.
Sure, I agree it's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed holistically, but I also need a plan for what to do in my classroom right now with these particular students. And I don't feel good about either passing those who haven't learned the material or failing 80% of the class.
If I was ignoring your point, it was unintentional because I was thinking about it through a systems level perspective and not at an individual lecturer's perspective. I didn't realize that was a concern of yours.
One thing I would try is to give students a scary speech on day 1. "This isn't going to be an easy class, I expect you to read the material, I will not be sharing my lecture notes, I'm a tough grader" etc etc.
I think an entrance exam is acceptable.
One thing I would try is to give students a scary speech on day 1. "This isn't going to be an easy class, I expect you to read the material, I will not be sharing my lecture notes, I'm a tough grader" etc etc.
I think an entrance exam is acceptable.
Having re-read my prior comment, I agree that I was unclear. Thanks for your comment. It sounds like we're probably 90-100% in agreement.
I'm thinking for intro just tell the students they are guaranteed a b- if they skip everything. Just acknowledge the transactionalism.
But the entry to the next class level requires a passing grade on the final exam, and DON'T water that down.
And of course, the exorbitant cost of college was unmentioned. These people are buying two new cars a year to go there. That uod the ante on the transactionalism substantially, and colleges everywhere would rather mint b+ degrees for 250k than impose standards
But the entry to the next class level requires a passing grade on the final exam, and DON'T water that down.
And of course, the exorbitant cost of college was unmentioned. These people are buying two new cars a year to go there. That uod the ante on the transactionalism substantially, and colleges everywhere would rather mint b+ degrees for 250k than impose standards
Quals are a standard part of graduate school. Many MS-only programs don’t require them, but most PhDs have done them. Quals work great as gatekeepers. But I think they can only work for small cohorts who have already self-selected into a challenging program and fewer students will give into the temptation to cheat (some will still cheat but it’s a lower proportion). Part of the secret sauce toward graduate quals is that most of the time the faculty know who they are going to accept before you even take the test- the test results probably only rarely flip their opinion of their students.
Quals will never be implemented at large in undergraduate mass-market coursework. The need for a placement exam on day one is supposed to be satisfied by prerequisite coursework. The fact that you have to pass a pre-calculus course before starting calculus is enforced by the school. Transfer credit from another school is supposed to be vetted by the registrar. And for the most part it is enforced, but the students still suck. Partly because if you struggled to get a C in pre-calculus then you’re not actually ready for calculus, especially after a couple week break in the summer or winter. Plus, a decent portion of students cheated to pass their pre-calc class. We could easily raise the pre-requisite requirements to a B+ or better, but that won’t actually work. There would be increased pressure to cheat, plus the alumni would stop their donations when their kids are forced to drop out.
The same thing would happen with a qualifying exam on day one. Many kids would cheat, so you’ll still get a bunch of unqualified students in your course. If you somehow managed to keep students from cheating you’d have so many students dropped on lesson two that you would break the school’s course scheduling system every semester. Would those failing students need to take their prerequisite courses again, or should they get to try again on your qualifying exam next semester without any extra courses? Either way is a disaster. The school would absolutely not let this go on for long in any decently sized course.
I don’t know what the answer is. It’s easy to say “just enforce the standards” but if nobody else is doing so then your efforts are wasted and you’ll probably get fired anyway.
Quals will never be implemented at large in undergraduate mass-market coursework. The need for a placement exam on day one is supposed to be satisfied by prerequisite coursework. The fact that you have to pass a pre-calculus course before starting calculus is enforced by the school. Transfer credit from another school is supposed to be vetted by the registrar. And for the most part it is enforced, but the students still suck. Partly because if you struggled to get a C in pre-calculus then you’re not actually ready for calculus, especially after a couple week break in the summer or winter. Plus, a decent portion of students cheated to pass their pre-calc class. We could easily raise the pre-requisite requirements to a B+ or better, but that won’t actually work. There would be increased pressure to cheat, plus the alumni would stop their donations when their kids are forced to drop out.
The same thing would happen with a qualifying exam on day one. Many kids would cheat, so you’ll still get a bunch of unqualified students in your course. If you somehow managed to keep students from cheating you’d have so many students dropped on lesson two that you would break the school’s course scheduling system every semester. Would those failing students need to take their prerequisite courses again, or should they get to try again on your qualifying exam next semester without any extra courses? Either way is a disaster. The school would absolutely not let this go on for long in any decently sized course.
I don’t know what the answer is. It’s easy to say “just enforce the standards” but if nobody else is doing so then your efforts are wasted and you’ll probably get fired anyway.
> Quals will never be implemented at large in undergraduate mass-market coursework.
I believe proctored math placement tests are still common upon matriculation at less-selective colleges (e.g., directional public schools). Usually Accuplacer or done in ALEKS. That said, the outcome these days may be corequisite section placement rather than remedial course placement. Colleges have to balance readiness against the graduation delays that remediation adds (which often lead students to drop out entirely).
I believe proctored math placement tests are still common upon matriculation at less-selective colleges (e.g., directional public schools). Usually Accuplacer or done in ALEKS. That said, the outcome these days may be corequisite section placement rather than remedial course placement. Colleges have to balance readiness against the graduation delays that remediation adds (which often lead students to drop out entirely).
There are schools that use placement exams to place new students into their first course level, partly because there is inconsistency between grades from different high-schools, and even standardized test scores aren't amazing predictors of college course performance (they are correlated, just not as much as we'd like). The school I teach at does this, and we often place students who got as high as a 4 on their AP Calc AB exam back into introductory calculus to take again.
GP seemed to be talking more about a qualifying exam at the beginning of every course. I don't think that will ever happen mostly because of what you stated as, "the graduation delays that remediation adds." Can you imagine how long it would take average students to graduate, or the dropout rate, if we made each student pass a placement exam before every course? We couldn't implement this without a radical change to how universities work.
GP seemed to be talking more about a qualifying exam at the beginning of every course. I don't think that will ever happen mostly because of what you stated as, "the graduation delays that remediation adds." Can you imagine how long it would take average students to graduate, or the dropout rate, if we made each student pass a placement exam before every course? We couldn't implement this without a radical change to how universities work.
> trying to make up for years of poor education
Poor prior knowledge is one thing. But the larger issue discussed in the article isn’t so much lack of knowledge, but lack of skills (like being able to read and understand longer “adult” texts) and the average general attitude. You can’t fix any of those quickly.
Poor prior knowledge is one thing. But the larger issue discussed in the article isn’t so much lack of knowledge, but lack of skills (like being able to read and understand longer “adult” texts) and the average general attitude. You can’t fix any of those quickly.
I had a professor for my systems programming class give a qualifier exam day 1, worth 1% of the final but you get an F if you fail. It was just fizzbuzz, a student failed then complained to the dean, so they werent allowed to do it.
As a teacher I would be okay with that - I tried my best and did what I could.
I think the core problem is that administration would not allow you to do this.
> What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs.
> What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs.
At the State university where I teach, literally part of our mission statement is to graduate every student who we admit. It has become a big part of the messaging from upper administration in the last few years.
Why is that a priority? I would think maintaining the reputation of a StateU diplomas would be more important for the school and graduates.
Love it.
>I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
I get that there’s been shifts in student attitudes - there’s lots of other people in similar positions saying it.
But, I think this quote of all of the text shows how the author has a distain for their students not simply because of any perceived lack of effort. My best professors would send these to the class without prompting.
But, the author clearly buys into the mystique of the professor like their lecture notes are some secret formula.
Meanwhile, they quote:
>Troy Jollimore writes, “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.”
If I had a teammate in a shared intellectual pursuit who didn’t share their notes…
I get that there’s been shifts in student attitudes - there’s lots of other people in similar positions saying it.
But, I think this quote of all of the text shows how the author has a distain for their students not simply because of any perceived lack of effort. My best professors would send these to the class without prompting.
But, the author clearly buys into the mystique of the professor like their lecture notes are some secret formula.
Meanwhile, they quote:
>Troy Jollimore writes, “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.”
If I had a teammate in a shared intellectual pursuit who didn’t share their notes…
Perhaps your average college student is now illiterate in the style of what your academic or Pulitzer Prize board would consider essential to comprehend. Acclaimed fiction novels usually gain acclaim not by how direct and to the point they are, but how they twist at words and portray things in a particularly long winded fashion.
Could it be that people of today that have grown up reading prose that is mostly to get to the point, and convey what is needed now do not have the ability to meander like that? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
Could it be that people of today that have grown up reading prose that is mostly to get to the point, and convey what is needed now do not have the ability to meander like that? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
I had a very similar view to this for a long time. Then I sat down and actually read some difficult novels, but good ones. They are difficult to read but not in the same way that, say, bad social science research is--full of jargon and overly long sentences so the author looks smart. Good novels are difficult because they use language in interesting ways to convey more information than just a dry scientific description of how one event followed another towards the resolution of the plot, like you'd find in most crime novels for example.
It really is worth actually learning to read good books. They aren't hard for the sake of being hard. But they also aren't simple for the sake of being simple.
It really is worth actually learning to read good books. They aren't hard for the sake of being hard. But they also aren't simple for the sake of being simple.
I wonder if our prestige has moved from having knowledge of difficult works (in difficult English, in other languages, in historic English) to having knowledge on a breadth of subjects.
Someone telling me they’ve read Virgil in Latin reads like a party trick to me. It’s certainly neat, but begs me to ask “why?” rather than inspiring awe. Someone being able to have an engaging conversation on macroeconomics, Supreme Court precedents from 50 years ago, and trends in social media is much more impressive.
That’s not to say there’s no value in acclaimed works, but the value now seems intrinsic rather than societal accolades. No one is impressed when your email about a meeting next week is a paragraph long sentence that requires a thesaurus to understand.
Someone telling me they’ve read Virgil in Latin reads like a party trick to me. It’s certainly neat, but begs me to ask “why?” rather than inspiring awe. Someone being able to have an engaging conversation on macroeconomics, Supreme Court precedents from 50 years ago, and trends in social media is much more impressive.
That’s not to say there’s no value in acclaimed works, but the value now seems intrinsic rather than societal accolades. No one is impressed when your email about a meeting next week is a paragraph long sentence that requires a thesaurus to understand.
It's certainly helpful to be more literate, if nothing more than to ensure you are understood by others. For example, your comment's readability is improved by adding punctuation and some extra words:
> Could it be that people of today that have grown up reading prose that is mostly to get to the point, and convey what is needed now do not have the ability to meander like that? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
Could it be that people of today have grown up reading prose that is mostly focused on getting to the point, conveying only what is needed, so much that they lack the ability to meander like fiction writers? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
> Could it be that people of today that have grown up reading prose that is mostly to get to the point, and convey what is needed now do not have the ability to meander like that? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
Could it be that people of today have grown up reading prose that is mostly focused on getting to the point, conveying only what is needed, so much that they lack the ability to meander like fiction writers? If so, does this make them "illiterate"?
sort of. im no scholar but i think learning to appreciate writing for the prose, style, and vocabulary and not only the story should be required in higher education
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
To me this indicates that, all else aside and even granting for the sake of argument they’re correct in all other aspects, they simply aren’t a good teacher, not providing a basic and easy to share resource. Even during my time in University a couple decades ago I never encountered a professor who had slide available in an easily shareable format yet would refuse to make them available. They’re your own notes on digesting, synthesizing, and analyzing the material? Well that’s exactly the sort of thing that is both useful and essentially your job to impart in a fashion that allows students to learn. Whatever the deficiencies of students today, you’re not doing your job if you decide to stand on principle for your own conception of how a student should learn instead of figuring out what will be effective.
This alone makes the author’s other observations suspect, perhaps not it kind but at least degree, since it’s clear that one of their core gripes is that students simply don’t learn the way they want students to learn, and they aren’t willing to meet students where they’re at to do the job they’re paid for. This isn’t “get off my lawn,” this is a landscaper saying “I’m gonna cut your lawn the way i want to cut it.”
To me this indicates that, all else aside and even granting for the sake of argument they’re correct in all other aspects, they simply aren’t a good teacher, not providing a basic and easy to share resource. Even during my time in University a couple decades ago I never encountered a professor who had slide available in an easily shareable format yet would refuse to make them available. They’re your own notes on digesting, synthesizing, and analyzing the material? Well that’s exactly the sort of thing that is both useful and essentially your job to impart in a fashion that allows students to learn. Whatever the deficiencies of students today, you’re not doing your job if you decide to stand on principle for your own conception of how a student should learn instead of figuring out what will be effective.
This alone makes the author’s other observations suspect, perhaps not it kind but at least degree, since it’s clear that one of their core gripes is that students simply don’t learn the way they want students to learn, and they aren’t willing to meet students where they’re at to do the job they’re paid for. This isn’t “get off my lawn,” this is a landscaper saying “I’m gonna cut your lawn the way i want to cut it.”
Most of my teachers either didn't use slides, or explicitly published their lecture notes. Seems weird to have made slides and then not want to share them.
While I agree with this particular point, it's weird not to share the slides, everything else rings true for me. I graduated college about a year ago, and so much of this I just took for granted. The class would just get smaller as the semester went on and more people 'disappeared'. In a lecture hall of 200 people, do you really think that my classmates weren't on their phones constantly?
Empirically, literacy rates are dropping. The anecdotes match the data. Why are you trying to negate this article?
Empirically, literacy rates are dropping. The anecdotes match the data. Why are you trying to negate this article?
This phrase in my comment: perhaps not it kind but at least degree
That not negation of the article and is instead questioning the extent to which their observations are accurate vs caricatures influenced by an outlook on their customers that is already, in software terms, “user hostile”.
The last time I taught in college was about 8 years ago at a school with a similar demographic fit, and I can recognize a fair bit of what the author say but not at all to this degree. I still work in the industry and there’s a post-Covid shift that I think strongly explains a sharp downshift in students feeling attendance is important, but I think that aught to resonate with the HN crowd with respect to a now-common feeling that dogmatic adherence to mandatory full work-from-office isn’t necessary or worker friendly. Consider all the more how that feeling would take hold for young students that spent significant formative years just prior to college being fully or highly remote.
On literacy, that’s an area I have some analytical experience in. As far as I have seen, at least a fair bit of this perception is from the fact that students view homework etc as low-stakes writing but higher stakes get more attention and the end product reflects more ability than might otherwise be shown. Also, the professor in this article may simply not be adept at getting the best results from a group of students that sense the dislike aimed their way. However my analysis side also predates ChatGPT.
That not negation of the article and is instead questioning the extent to which their observations are accurate vs caricatures influenced by an outlook on their customers that is already, in software terms, “user hostile”.
The last time I taught in college was about 8 years ago at a school with a similar demographic fit, and I can recognize a fair bit of what the author say but not at all to this degree. I still work in the industry and there’s a post-Covid shift that I think strongly explains a sharp downshift in students feeling attendance is important, but I think that aught to resonate with the HN crowd with respect to a now-common feeling that dogmatic adherence to mandatory full work-from-office isn’t necessary or worker friendly. Consider all the more how that feeling would take hold for young students that spent significant formative years just prior to college being fully or highly remote.
On literacy, that’s an area I have some analytical experience in. As far as I have seen, at least a fair bit of this perception is from the fact that students view homework etc as low-stakes writing but higher stakes get more attention and the end product reflects more ability than might otherwise be shown. Also, the professor in this article may simply not be adept at getting the best results from a group of students that sense the dislike aimed their way. However my analysis side also predates ChatGPT.
So many of the writer's issues with students today are things I did myself a good amount when I was in college around 15 years ago at this point. I skipped classes all the time and I was often browsing the web on my phone / laptop even if I did goto class.
If I'm being honest, a lot of my professors (perhaps a big majority even) were just bad teachers and I got much more value out of the textbook, looking up stuff on the internet, or just tinkering with the at home assignments. I can say with 100% certainty that ChatGPT would have been infinitely more helpful in me learning calculus compared to the professor who taught my class in university.
I also don't really align with the issues he has with students asking for the slide decks used in class. If it can help your students learn the material, the whole purpose of the class, then what's the big deal? This point in particular almost made it seem like he's a bit salty over his students not being deferential enough to him.
All in all, despite doing many of the things that this writer takes issue with when I was in college myself years ago, I have a great career and I'm good at my work. So I think the kids are going to be just fine.
If I'm being honest, a lot of my professors (perhaps a big majority even) were just bad teachers and I got much more value out of the textbook, looking up stuff on the internet, or just tinkering with the at home assignments. I can say with 100% certainty that ChatGPT would have been infinitely more helpful in me learning calculus compared to the professor who taught my class in university.
I also don't really align with the issues he has with students asking for the slide decks used in class. If it can help your students learn the material, the whole purpose of the class, then what's the big deal? This point in particular almost made it seem like he's a bit salty over his students not being deferential enough to him.
All in all, despite doing many of the things that this writer takes issue with when I was in college myself years ago, I have a great career and I'm good at my work. So I think the kids are going to be just fine.
Yes I think you're right about that. Most teachers are not good at teaching. You have to wonder why they need special certification to be a school teacher when the result is so bad. I know that most teachers were bad because I had a few excellent teachers and the contrast made it obvious. I failed high school math, then I went to university and did a more advanced math course; I got distinction. I didn't even invest more time. The difference is that, at university, I was mostly skipping the lectures and reading directly from the textbook.
Math at school was just insane; it was an endless stream of; if you see this problem, use this formula. If you see that problem, use that formula... But nobody understood what they were doing. Nobody learned math from first principles.
It's weird though because in university, as I was doing well in math, I came across John Von Neumann's quote "In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
To me, this suggests that some gifted people have the ability to apply complex rules without understanding them from first principles... But that was absolutely never the case for me. I'm the opposite of that. I can't apply something before I fully understand it.
Math at school was just insane; it was an endless stream of; if you see this problem, use this formula. If you see that problem, use that formula... But nobody understood what they were doing. Nobody learned math from first principles.
It's weird though because in university, as I was doing well in math, I came across John Von Neumann's quote "In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
To me, this suggests that some gifted people have the ability to apply complex rules without understanding them from first principles... But that was absolutely never the case for me. I'm the opposite of that. I can't apply something before I fully understand it.
I always laugh when professors complain that students doing poorly in the class don't show up to class or office hours; they might just be really bad teachers, and they know those things won't help them.
Some of these observations aren't particularly surprising, but this line really took me out of it:
> Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
The implication that for one course (of which they have multiple in a year, over four years), students can be expected to spend up to $100 for textbooks (and the author thinks this is low-priced!) is astonishing and shows a profound disconnect with the actual financial situation of students. Of course, many will just use libgen or get second-hand copies, but these things are thwarted by incremental releases with just enough changes to make them infeasible for use in the course.
> Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
The implication that for one course (of which they have multiple in a year, over four years), students can be expected to spend up to $100 for textbooks (and the author thinks this is low-priced!) is astonishing and shows a profound disconnect with the actual financial situation of students. Of course, many will just use libgen or get second-hand copies, but these things are thwarted by incremental releases with just enough changes to make them infeasible for use in the course.
I live near Big State U. The median student drops that much money on booze over two weeks (or one week if it’s an important holiday like Halloween or Saint Patrick’s day).
What I see is that the declining interest in the life of the mind that was already evident a generation earlier has accelerated, particularly during the COVID years. I see this as the reversion of a historical anomaly. In the postwar era, a number of things converged: the GI Bill allowed a lot of ambitious new blood to enter the university system, competition with the Soviets ensured generous funding, and many the finest brains of a generation of Europeans relocated to the US. This all started to come undone in the late 1960s, when the counterculture made the establishment start to question the value of the academy, the world war 2 GIs finished their educations, and the cream of 1930s Europe died off. Really, it’s surprising how long we’ve been able to sustain a decline since then.
What I see is that the declining interest in the life of the mind that was already evident a generation earlier has accelerated, particularly during the COVID years. I see this as the reversion of a historical anomaly. In the postwar era, a number of things converged: the GI Bill allowed a lot of ambitious new blood to enter the university system, competition with the Soviets ensured generous funding, and many the finest brains of a generation of Europeans relocated to the US. This all started to come undone in the late 1960s, when the counterculture made the establishment start to question the value of the academy, the world war 2 GIs finished their educations, and the cream of 1930s Europe died off. Really, it’s surprising how long we’ve been able to sustain a decline since then.
They’ve been sucking up international students from Asia mostly to fill in the gap just like everything else. Let superior countries raise them then bring them over with the lure of big money. It’s all the US has to offer anymore is a chance for the select few to become part of the 1%, oligarchy. 300 million normal people may as well not exist here.
From what I can tell, children of foreign elites are about as serious about education as students born in the US, but they drive luxury cars, live in fancy off campus housing, and find different things to do that aren’t the assigned reading. The number of Lamborghinis in town is all out of proportion to the area’s income.
I believe the prior post is referring to first generation students that receive their primary education in foreign countries.
Like I said in another post, the environment in these primary schools in the United States is just not set up for success. Their standards are low and they allow smart phones and distracting device devices in schools. Not to mention the overt focus on athletics over academics. However, the last point is not the biggest issue as that’s been a part of primary education in high school in the US for a century at least.
Like I said in another post, the environment in these primary schools in the United States is just not set up for success. Their standards are low and they allow smart phones and distracting device devices in schools. Not to mention the overt focus on athletics over academics. However, the last point is not the biggest issue as that’s been a part of primary education in high school in the US for a century at least.
Meh. Lazy stereotypes. Imported students can be just as dumb as home grown, US-educated students can be just as smart as foreign, and I think the distribution is about the same everywhere. I think other countries have their own malaise, I’m just not in a good a position to understand the causes.
I guess I'm on the other side of this. $30-100 is a reasonable price for books for a college-level course in the United States.
Assuming this https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college is accurate, tuition at the mid-level state university in the article is probably around $10k/year. That's more than it should be, but why would you play $10k/year for classes then not buy the books?
Assuming this https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college is accurate, tuition at the mid-level state university in the article is probably around $10k/year. That's more than it should be, but why would you play $10k/year for classes then not buy the books?
For the overwhelming majority of students, tuition is not paid out of pocket. It's paid with loans. They see it as an investment towards a career which will allow them to pay back those loans. For many, the weight of their debt does not sink in until well after college. Meanwhile, textbooks are an immediate cost with an immediate impact on a student's financial situation.
I attended university in the early 2010s. After my freshman year I stopped buying textbooks for most classes. More than just their cost, I found that most textbooks really were optional. Most professors never even referenced them throughout the course. I figured I could always buy a book later if I found out I needed it, but that never happened. The few books I actually did buy after my freshman year were all mistakes. I have not read any of them and I had no trouble with their associated classes.
It sounds like the professor who wrote this article actually incorporates the course material he assigns. Good for him. But in my experience that is quite rare.
I attended university in the early 2010s. After my freshman year I stopped buying textbooks for most classes. More than just their cost, I found that most textbooks really were optional. Most professors never even referenced them throughout the course. I figured I could always buy a book later if I found out I needed it, but that never happened. The few books I actually did buy after my freshman year were all mistakes. I have not read any of them and I had no trouble with their associated classes.
It sounds like the professor who wrote this article actually incorporates the course material he assigns. Good for him. But in my experience that is quite rare.
> For the overwhelming majority of students, tuition is not paid out of pocket. It's paid with loans. They see it as an investment towards a career which will allow them to pay back those loans. For many, the weight of their debt does not sink in until well after college. Meanwhile, textbooks are an immediate cost with an immediate impact on a student's financial situation.
Textbooks can equally well be paid for with college loans, they aren't restricted to tuition-only.
Textbooks can equally well be paid for with college loans, they aren't restricted to tuition-only.
> Textbooks can equally well be paid for with college loans, they aren't restricted to tuition-only.
Making the financial problem with study costs in the USA even worse, more cash to buy textbooks from credit means higher prices that can be extracted for the books, just like any other good which is mostly paid through easily achievable loans.
Making the financial problem with study costs in the USA even worse, more cash to buy textbooks from credit means higher prices that can be extracted for the books, just like any other good which is mostly paid through easily achievable loans.
The best was when you could download the book and share a PDF with the class. Fuck the textbook industry, it's extortionate.
I would, however, be thrilled to find a $35 text. The average cost of my upper division textbooks was closer to $200 each. Some courses would assign multiple books.
I would, however, be thrilled to find a $35 text. The average cost of my upper division textbooks was closer to $200 each. Some courses would assign multiple books.
> More than just their cost, I found that most textbooks really were optional. Most professors never even referenced them throughout the course.
Imho that’s what makes the textbook overpriced: the usefulness in the course. In my academic years i’ve seen some textbook that are actually pleasant to read and that you could actually rely on, alone, to pass the course… and then so many books that where completely useless: either more of a reference than anything else or some poorly written text by the same professor holding the course.
At some point I resorted to ligben first, and then bookstore later and only if the book did deliver some actual value.
Imho that’s what makes the textbook overpriced: the usefulness in the course. In my academic years i’ve seen some textbook that are actually pleasant to read and that you could actually rely on, alone, to pass the course… and then so many books that where completely useless: either more of a reference than anything else or some poorly written text by the same professor holding the course.
At some point I resorted to ligben first, and then bookstore later and only if the book did deliver some actual value.
Because it is an additional expense and fairly often you don't actually need it. You are paying a lot of money for that one chapter you will maybe have to read and whose content you can likely find elsewhere.
Plus, the idea that everyone should buy it is bonkers. There are or should be libraries in school that costs $10k a year. Or at least, there should be used book from last year or rhat one book 5 friends bought together. All these would be financially reasonable decisions.
Plus, the idea that everyone should buy it is bonkers. There are or should be libraries in school that costs $10k a year. Or at least, there should be used book from last year or rhat one book 5 friends bought together. All these would be financially reasonable decisions.
Have you seen what books cost? Not textbooks, like those from Pearson or something, but regular books.
This guy is a philosophy professor, so if he is assigning a book every 1-2 weeks, in a 14-week semester, let’s say that’s like 8 books.
Buying 8 books for under $100 is cheap. It does sound like he takes care to craft an affordable syllabus.
Of course, if you are taking 5 classes a semester it’s gonna add up, but this is really not on the egregious end of things.
This guy is a philosophy professor, so if he is assigning a book every 1-2 weeks, in a 14-week semester, let’s say that’s like 8 books.
Buying 8 books for under $100 is cheap. It does sound like he takes care to craft an affordable syllabus.
Of course, if you are taking 5 classes a semester it’s gonna add up, but this is really not on the egregious end of things.
In fairness, as a philosophy major, I realized fairly early on that most of what we read was out of copyright. I suppose if he's assigning stuff that is ABOUT what some philosophers wrote, it makes sense, but forgive me if I prefer just saving money to read Aristotle from Project Gutenberg.
And sure, there is more contemporary philosophy, and it's great he's keeping the books affordable. But if it's anything early 20th century or prior, don't be so surprised people are going to read what's in the public domain instead.
And sure, there is more contemporary philosophy, and it's great he's keeping the books affordable. But if it's anything early 20th century or prior, don't be so surprised people are going to read what's in the public domain instead.
Haha what I remember in those cases was that the main value in having the assigned book was being able to same page during class discussions.
I mean, literally the same page — so if someone says “what did ya’ll think about this quote on p.156” I could actually get to it in time instead of scrambling to find the passage in whatever I printed out from Project Guttenberg.
For this reason my strategy to save book money was usually to get the assigned books from the library and camp out in front of the copy machine for an afternoon.
I mean, literally the same page — so if someone says “what did ya’ll think about this quote on p.156” I could actually get to it in time instead of scrambling to find the passage in whatever I printed out from Project Guttenberg.
For this reason my strategy to save book money was usually to get the assigned books from the library and camp out in front of the copy machine for an afternoon.
We used to peruse the library back in the day.
Ha I would spend a couple hours in front of the library copy machine at the start of the semester, and then take my stack to the store and get it bound myself.
She is teaching courses that involve reading books. In her words: “I’m teaching Existentialism this semester. It is entirely primary texts—Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre”. Five or more books plus a textbook might cost $100. (And yes of course all of these are on Gutenberg and Libgen, but the point is that the kids don’t read them either way.)
Setting aside Libgen (never used it, don’t know anything about it), it’s unlikely that any of those authors is available on Gutenberg in a modern, critical translation. Reading primary texts in their publication language was dead or dying even when I was a philosophy major, but still it’s impossible to do close textual analysis without a scholarly translation.
I know some of the early translations of e.g. Nietzche sometimes end up saying the opposite of what might have been intended, which is a downer.
I know some of the early translations of e.g. Nietzche sometimes end up saying the opposite of what might have been intended, which is a downer.
I guess that anyone which, on top of being an English native, can read both French and German, and are confident that they can grasp anything from some of their most sybilin hermeneuticians, is really far from the average student, whatever their nationality.
The linked text is clearly announcing it's focused on the average student, not the top of bottom tiers.
I'm not sure about the opinion that the author implies about Harry Potter, but I'm confident the series is an easier read and still give you plenty of opportunity to discuss about philosophical and literacy topics.
Anyway, that's definitely an interesting reading, I forwarded it to my wife who teach as a physician, something I rarely feel like relevant to do with HN posts.
The linked text is clearly announcing it's focused on the average student, not the top of bottom tiers.
I'm not sure about the opinion that the author implies about Harry Potter, but I'm confident the series is an easier read and still give you plenty of opportunity to discuss about philosophical and literacy topics.
Anyway, that's definitely an interesting reading, I forwarded it to my wife who teach as a physician, something I rarely feel like relevant to do with HN posts.
At least they have physical textbooks. Many classes now only provide links to a PDF document and the students still pay $100-$200 for the privilege. Plus, you can’t recover a portion of the cost of the book by reselling it nor can students save money by buying used books.
I disagree that K through 12 is not part of the problem though. The presence of phones in schools, especially smart phones, has definitely had an impact on the learning skills of students. In the old days, if you will, people had to pass physical pieces of paper around in class secretly to communicate, which was riskier and usually a one or two time event. Smart phones are a Pandora’s box of distractions. I also blame schools for lowering their standards to accommodate the lower standards of the students entering their schools. The schools are simply passing these students down the down the river of eventual disappointment. There should be remedial courses and schools should dismiss students that are not willing or able to pass these courses in order to have the ability to perform at an acceptable level.
Taking their money and providing a degree when they haven’t actually learned the material is borderline fraud.
I disagree that K through 12 is not part of the problem though. The presence of phones in schools, especially smart phones, has definitely had an impact on the learning skills of students. In the old days, if you will, people had to pass physical pieces of paper around in class secretly to communicate, which was riskier and usually a one or two time event. Smart phones are a Pandora’s box of distractions. I also blame schools for lowering their standards to accommodate the lower standards of the students entering their schools. The schools are simply passing these students down the down the river of eventual disappointment. There should be remedial courses and schools should dismiss students that are not willing or able to pass these courses in order to have the ability to perform at an acceptable level.
Taking their money and providing a degree when they haven’t actually learned the material is borderline fraud.
Pfft one of my text books isn’t even a PDF— it’s a proprietary app that requires internet access and is 350mb. Doesn’t allow copy and paste either of course. And I’m sure I’ll have to pay another $60 for the license again next semester for the second part of the class.
THAT is gross. At least when books were expensive, you knew you could recoup some of that cost the following year selling them back. It also meant you could buy them cheaper used. Assuming you didn't have a professor assigning their own texts and insisting you got the latest edition...
It’s your moral duty to dump that app, extract the contents and make a torrent out of it.
I know I’ll be flagged and downvoted for this but I don’t care.
I know I’ll be flagged and downvoted for this but I don’t care.
It's worse than that: many textbooks are actually subscription services.
Yes, this is it. You can usually find some discounted or free way to get most books, but I had classes where you literally submitted homework through the same system you accessed the book through, and it was like $150.
> students can be expected to spend up to $100 for textbooks (and the author thinks this is low-priced!) is astonishing and shows a profound disconnect with the actual financial situation of students.
Yeah well, 40 years ago that is what my textbooks cost. I was surprised by that quote that they were so inexpensive.
Yeah well, 40 years ago that is what my textbooks cost. I was surprised by that quote that they were so inexpensive.
Tuition at similar (second tier state) schools is going to be ~$6000 per semester! It goes up from there.
What's going on that the students have the resources for the tuition but not books at 5-10% of that cost (that's a 4 course load with books costing $100-150 per course)?
What's going on that the students have the resources for the tuition but not books at 5-10% of that cost (that's a 4 course load with books costing $100-150 per course)?
Don't know how school funding operates in the US so this is a guess:
Parents cover the fees and give the kids an allowance for the rest; either the kids budget poorly or the allowance fails to really account for just how expensive the first few weeks are with all the books you're expected to buy?
Parents cover the fees and give the kids an allowance for the rest; either the kids budget poorly or the allowance fails to really account for just how expensive the first few weeks are with all the books you're expected to buy?
The average parent in the US can't afford an extra $12000 per year in expenses. College students take out loans to pay for their education. I'm not sure what the average debt load is currently, but people I personally know who got away with a "small" student loan debt owed around $30000, and I've known people with >$100k student loan debt just from an undergraduate education.
Parents covering school mostly went away in the 90's outside of the particularly wealthy segments of society. Mostly student loans since then, which people hope to have paid off by the time they retire to avoid having their social security payments garnished. Joking of course; nobody assumes social security will still be there.
I went to college in The 1990s, and that is low priced by comparison—not even adjusted for inflation, just by nominal prices.
A considerate professor would allow using an older or multiple editions of the books, and assign appropriate readings or problems for multiple editions. Libgen e-books are a strictly better product anyways: you don't have to carry it around and you can annotate them without the notes being inside the book.
20 years ago, I would get the book list from the professor and purchase the identical "international editions" of the same books on Ebay, shipped out from Macmillan India or a foreign imprint publisher. They were probably 1/3rd of the US price, but the content was identical.
Often times, professors would allow us to purchase earlier editions of the book for our coursework, which were a fraction of the cost of the most recent edition.
Worst case scenario, I could reserve the book at the school library, but I'd have to move fast as there'd only be a handful of copies available.
Often times, professors would allow us to purchase earlier editions of the book for our coursework, which were a fraction of the cost of the most recent edition.
Worst case scenario, I could reserve the book at the school library, but I'd have to move fast as there'd only be a handful of copies available.
For those who want to do that today there is no need to bother with eBay or shipping from abroad. The publishers tried to stop them claiming copyright violation but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the first sale doctrine applies [1].
Since that ruling many independent booksellers in the US started importing those foreign editions and selling them through online marketplaces such as Abe Books and Biblio.
Here are some examples of the savings. Lets say you are a math student, and your introductory calculus is taught from the first volume of Apostol's Calculus, your multivariable calculus taught from the second volume, and you real and complex analysis class uses Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.
The US editions of those will set you back around $220 for the first volume of Apostol, around $140 for the second volume, and around $240 for Rudin.
On Abe Books you can get the international editions of the Apostol books from a US seller for $24.39 for volume 1 and $23.40 for volume 2 with free shipping. There are several more US sellers with then in the $30-40 range.
For the Rudin book $22.06 will get it from a US seller on Abe Books with free shipping. There are few more US sellers in the $35-50 range.
Biblio isn't as good on these particular books. They are available at comparable price but only from Indian sellers with shipping from India.
I haven't seen the international edition of Rudin but I have both the US and international editions of both volumes of Apostol and the text is the same. It is the physical form that differs. The US edition is hardback printed on finer paper. The international edition is a paperback printed on rougher paper and the pages are smaller.
[1] Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013)
Since that ruling many independent booksellers in the US started importing those foreign editions and selling them through online marketplaces such as Abe Books and Biblio.
Here are some examples of the savings. Lets say you are a math student, and your introductory calculus is taught from the first volume of Apostol's Calculus, your multivariable calculus taught from the second volume, and you real and complex analysis class uses Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.
The US editions of those will set you back around $220 for the first volume of Apostol, around $140 for the second volume, and around $240 for Rudin.
On Abe Books you can get the international editions of the Apostol books from a US seller for $24.39 for volume 1 and $23.40 for volume 2 with free shipping. There are several more US sellers with then in the $30-40 range.
For the Rudin book $22.06 will get it from a US seller on Abe Books with free shipping. There are few more US sellers in the $35-50 range.
Biblio isn't as good on these particular books. They are available at comparable price but only from Indian sellers with shipping from India.
I haven't seen the international edition of Rudin but I have both the US and international editions of both volumes of Apostol and the text is the same. It is the physical form that differs. The US edition is hardback printed on finer paper. The international edition is a paperback printed on rougher paper and the pages are smaller.
[1] Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013)
I did take class out of Tommy I and II and used the international editions. Having taught linear algebra myself since I wouldn’t use it for linear algebra because some of the stuff in there for numerics is outdated.
At my university, every teacher published a PDF with the material on their website. In other to pass the exam, I was expected to familiarize myself with the PDF. Obviously, the PDF could be very long and complicated, but that's beside the point. I don't understand why this system is so controversial.
It's interesting, in my country if a classmate bought a textbook I would assume they bought the one because they love the subject and are going to keep using it after college. I don't think I ever actually saw someone buy a textbook.
Honestly, that doesn't sound uncommon even for the classes I took 20 years ago.
A single book in a non-literature class could easily go for more than that. CS was especially bad in this regard, for some reason.
A single book in a non-literature class could easily go for more than that. CS was especially bad in this regard, for some reason.
I wish my books were that cheap. 20 years ago. Even used they were well above that price.
$100 for books for a single course would have seemed cheap to me 30 years ago.
Yes, I had the exact same thought. $35 is a lot of money to people who aren't tenured professors or fully employed developers like myself now.
The lack of understanding of economic realities just kinda stinks.
It was a long time ago now, but the biggest reason I ended in a local two-year college instead of a four-year university was I simply couldn't afford the $20 application fees. I only applied to two schools because it was all I could afford.
The lack of understanding of economic realities just kinda stinks.
It was a long time ago now, but the biggest reason I ended in a local two-year college instead of a four-year university was I simply couldn't afford the $20 application fees. I only applied to two schools because it was all I could afford.
The share of adults with a higher education degree almost doubled during the author’s teaching career. No surprise a median student is less capable and motivated today.
Many people see the increase in proportion of young people graduating college as a sign that the education system has improved, not that standards have been lowered.
What's obvious to you isn't obvious to them :(
What's obvious to you isn't obvious to them :(
Pedantically, the grandparent comment didn’t say it was obvious, only it was unsurprising :)
As a student who graduates this year, I notice that something like 90% of students seem to rely on LLMs.
I’ve seen some students toss in 5+ files of code into GPT just to prompt it over and over again, hoping it produces a desirable output. When it fails too many times they open a new chat and try again. I’ve heard conversations about the best way to prompt the AI to do our assignments for us.
I’ve seen some students toss in 5+ files of code into GPT just to prompt it over and over again, hoping it produces a desirable output. When it fails too many times they open a new chat and try again. I’ve heard conversations about the best way to prompt the AI to do our assignments for us.
"I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes.'
What is this guy's problem. I frequently present to my companies C suite and I've never considered not sending them my unredacted presenters notes...If there's value in them for me why wouldn't their be value in them for others trying to learn about my topic.
What is this guy's problem. I frequently present to my companies C suite and I've never considered not sending them my unredacted presenters notes...If there's value in them for me why wouldn't their be value in them for others trying to learn about my topic.
You don't grade your company's C Suite on their ability to learn from your presentation. Do you really think a Professor in college should just facilitate the students to not come to class and take notes??
Yes. Not because it's a good idea but because facilitating learning is their primary job and uploading the slides is generally helpful for all students, including the ones that do take notes.
Not doing so because it allows students to put in less effort only makes sense if you view college as transactional.
Not doing so because it allows students to put in less effort only makes sense if you view college as transactional.
> facilitating learning is their primary job
They are not facilitating learning if they help the students to not come to class. So many studies show class attendance is linked to better outcomes and learning of the knowledge.
They are not facilitating learning if they help the students to not come to class. So many studies show class attendance is linked to better outcomes and learning of the knowledge.
The author doesn't have a problem with students getting the notes. He only has a problem providing the notes.
> It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate.
> It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate.
The notes from a classmate are a distillation of the lecture, not the professors own material. Again, it's all pretty sensible for a teaching, grading the students on how they learn, environment
Author in the start has said, that around 65% of students have skipped on getting a textbook.
And thus I have a genuine question to other people here. How common it was for students to actually read a textbook, cover to cover? I did my CS undergrad in Poland - and talking to my peers, I don't think a single of us ever did that. We used lecture slides at best and online resources for code.
And thus I have a genuine question to other people here. How common it was for students to actually read a textbook, cover to cover? I did my CS undergrad in Poland - and talking to my peers, I don't think a single of us ever did that. We used lecture slides at best and online resources for code.
The author of the article is a philosophy professor. In the humanities, yes it is common to read books cover-to-cover. They are more often just “books” and less the sort of textbooks you may be thinking of.
I still have many of my textbooks from College. They are great reference books, and yes, I read them all.
But that was pre-internet.
I must say, that was a very structured, well laid out way to learn. I mean that as opposed to Googling for each subtopic, reading dozens of webpages on that single subtopic, hoping to find accurate info.
But that was pre-internet.
I must say, that was a very structured, well laid out way to learn. I mean that as opposed to Googling for each subtopic, reading dozens of webpages on that single subtopic, hoping to find accurate info.
I'm a mathematics graduate student. A good textbook about a topic in math is gold. Sometimes I even prefer reading a book than going to a lecture because I can skip things that I know or take more time on difficult sections. One time, in a theoretical physics course, I just didn't like the lecturer's style. Fortunately, his lectures were based on a very good book (Kuypers, classical mechanics) which I then read. But I don't think that I have ever "finished" a textbook from front to back. There are always things that are more important.
More than a few times i would re-read the textbook end to end in the week leading up to final exam. Particularly for subjects that I knew were foundational for future courses. 20 years later I still find myself breaking out my old textbooks several times a year to refresh a topic.
I’m referring to mostly engineering, economics, and finance textbooks. As much as I enjoyed philosophy and ethics, I don’t find myself needing to break those books open.
In graduate school, I would spend four to six hours every night hand-copying textbook chapters into a spiral notebook as it was the only way I could slow down my reading sufficiently to actually comprehend the material.
For undergrad, I would always read the 'assigned material' (essays, literature, etc.) but only recall opening one or two textbooks.
For undergrad, I would always read the 'assigned material' (essays, literature, etc.) but only recall opening one or two textbooks.
Not cover to cover, but yes, we generally did most of the reading most of the time. I don't mean to exaggerate: sometimes you skimmed, and I gave up on Kant, but in a lot of classes you'd be lost and screwed if you didn't make a plausible pass on the reading.
This was 18 years at a massive public university, which by design drew students from all backgrounds.
I'm inherently skeptical of "kids these days" arguments, but it really seems like the smartphones and the way we approached the pandemic was incredibly destructive.
This was 18 years at a massive public university, which by design drew students from all backgrounds.
I'm inherently skeptical of "kids these days" arguments, but it really seems like the smartphones and the way we approached the pandemic was incredibly destructive.
I have a CS degree. I read all my textbooks. In some math classes I read textbooks I wasn't required to in the library to help me understand things that I didn't understand in the official textbook.
Not CS, but I got a STEM degree from a top university. You read all the books to pass the course, and if you wanted an A, you also read the material on the suggested reading lists.
Same here. There was a fair amount illicit copying of textbooks too. But this teacher doesn't even want to share his lecture slides.
Did over 7 years of university at different levels and never ever bought a textbook.
Definitely not important, it mainly reflects on how are teachers choosing to disseminate their knowledge.
Definitely not important, it mainly reflects on how are teachers choosing to disseminate their knowledge.
anybody else read this and think "Why are you graduating these midwits then? This is why a university degree is useless at this point, it's lost all signalling value because someone who is awesome gets the same degree as someone functionally illiterate with an 8th grade writing level. The person with the 8th grade writing level should have an 8th grade diploma!"
The problem is not the phones, k-12, etc. The problem is something like 38% of the workforce has a bachelor's degree and it probably should be more like max 25%. This guy's very average college is likely majority people who should not be in a college degree program and his college is graduating them regardless of failure to attain an actual education.
The problem is not the phones, k-12, etc. The problem is something like 38% of the workforce has a bachelor's degree and it probably should be more like max 25%. This guy's very average college is likely majority people who should not be in a college degree program and his college is graduating them regardless of failure to attain an actual education.
> I teach at a regional public university
I think this is the main explanation. The median college student has a lower IQ now compared to 10 years ago because more people are going to college, and the marginal new student is below the college educated median.
That's it, everything else is downstream. The top 100k university students are as studious and capable as ever before.
I think this is the main explanation. The median college student has a lower IQ now compared to 10 years ago because more people are going to college, and the marginal new student is below the college educated median.
That's it, everything else is downstream. The top 100k university students are as studious and capable as ever before.
> The top 100k university students
Can you tell me which universities these students go to, or other attributes about them?
Can you tell me which universities these students go to, or other attributes about them?
Around 2 million people take the SAT every year.
A score of 710 on the reading portion gets you into the top 5%.
So there are ~100k students who scored 710 or higher on the reading portion of the SAT.
Those students are the ones I'm talking about. I claim that anyone who can score a 710 on the reading portion is above the level of capability that the author of this post is complaining about.
Some evidence for this claim, a score of 710 would put a student in the top 10% of a "regional public university", but the same student would be in the bottom 10% of Harvard or MIT students (probably would not get in with a 710). In other words, the author of this article is complaining about a capability level which is the overwhelming majority of his school, but ~0% of the students at the best schools.
A score of 710 on the reading portion gets you into the top 5%.
So there are ~100k students who scored 710 or higher on the reading portion of the SAT.
Those students are the ones I'm talking about. I claim that anyone who can score a 710 on the reading portion is above the level of capability that the author of this post is complaining about.
Some evidence for this claim, a score of 710 would put a student in the top 10% of a "regional public university", but the same student would be in the bottom 10% of Harvard or MIT students (probably would not get in with a 710). In other words, the author of this article is complaining about a capability level which is the overwhelming majority of his school, but ~0% of the students at the best schools.
Re: the gym
I've always been quick on the weights, if you give me a workout plan I'll say something like "that's a great workout plan but it needs supersets" [1] It's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time that some people sit in the machines forever but it's steadily gotten worse. I complained to the head of the fitness center at my Uni two years ago about students sitting in the machines and scrolling on their phones.
Lately I've been going to Crunch and over there it seems 90% of the young people are wearing Airpods; lately I've been getting more assertive about asking "can I cut in?" when somebody has been sitting in the leg curl machine for 25 minutes but today it involves gesturing wildly like Brain from Inspector Gadget and having them take the pods out before I can make the ask, at least they are always polite about it.
It's bad enough that I picked up a copy of Enter the Kettlebell and a 35 pound kettlebell (an intimidating object right now) and will probably set up some TRX straps in my AV/VR/rec room. My fox wants me to do functional training anyway.
Re: grad students
I'm a non-academic with an academic background who works at a research university. My unit shares a kitchen with a bullpen of about 40 grad students so I wind up talking to them all the time. Pre-pandemic it seemed I could always get them to talk about what they were working on but this year many of them seem terribly inarticulate. The CSGU union saturates the area with posters that explain what they are doing for grad students that should be easy to read but I get the impression that some struggle.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/what-is-a-superset
I've always been quick on the weights, if you give me a workout plan I'll say something like "that's a great workout plan but it needs supersets" [1] It's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time that some people sit in the machines forever but it's steadily gotten worse. I complained to the head of the fitness center at my Uni two years ago about students sitting in the machines and scrolling on their phones.
Lately I've been going to Crunch and over there it seems 90% of the young people are wearing Airpods; lately I've been getting more assertive about asking "can I cut in?" when somebody has been sitting in the leg curl machine for 25 minutes but today it involves gesturing wildly like Brain from Inspector Gadget and having them take the pods out before I can make the ask, at least they are always polite about it.
It's bad enough that I picked up a copy of Enter the Kettlebell and a 35 pound kettlebell (an intimidating object right now) and will probably set up some TRX straps in my AV/VR/rec room. My fox wants me to do functional training anyway.
Re: grad students
I'm a non-academic with an academic background who works at a research university. My unit shares a kitchen with a bullpen of about 40 grad students so I wind up talking to them all the time. Pre-pandemic it seemed I could always get them to talk about what they were working on but this year many of them seem terribly inarticulate. The CSGU union saturates the area with posters that explain what they are doing for grad students that should be easy to read but I get the impression that some struggle.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/what-is-a-superset
Home gyms are great. I also recommend adjustable dumbbells, they are very versatile.
Ouch the bit about being illiterate hits hard. I've always struggled to read literature that uses highly intricate, complex, or archaic English. I also struggle reading books cover to cover. I also had a disability throughout uni which made it difficult to read for extended periods of time, so I learned to be effective at skimming things. But as I matured as a student, I took the time to really understand prose, especially technical and mathematical jargon as that was pretty important. I read a lot of academic papers and dense books on theory and improved my comprehension skills. But today I still find reading a lot of books end to end is difficult and hard to make time. For awhile I was listening to audiobooks and that helped a lot and it helps ingest content but I feel I'm missing out on learning specific prose or vocabulary. Basically something I really need to improve on.
This unfortunate soul is a philosophy prof, which means most, if not all of his students aren't interested in philosophy but rather just need the credits to graduate.
But, don't blame the 18-19 yr olds for being astute enough to recognize the true signal from noise. For example, Every major university library renovation I've seen, has resulted in far fewer books on shelves but more audio/visuals, group study rooms, and coffee bars. What signal does that send about intrinsic value of books.
But, don't blame the 18-19 yr olds for being astute enough to recognize the true signal from noise. For example, Every major university library renovation I've seen, has resulted in far fewer books on shelves but more audio/visuals, group study rooms, and coffee bars. What signal does that send about intrinsic value of books.
If students can finish an University without being able to read and comprehend a book, if they can pass exams without learning anything, then why does the said University still exist?
They just take money without teaching the students anything.
In some countries the universities have to be accredited by some body. And they will lose their accreditation if their output is just people who are functionally illiterate, know nothing about a subject and have no qualifications.
They just take money without teaching the students anything.
In some countries the universities have to be accredited by some body. And they will lose their accreditation if their output is just people who are functionally illiterate, know nothing about a subject and have no qualifications.
About a decade ago when my son finished high school, on the eve of graduation, I saw that one of his peers wrote gleefully on social media that she hadn’t read a single book, assigned or otherwise, during her 4 years there.
I can only imagine that the intellectual malaise has become more widespread. So long as we reward that form of incuriosity and treat education as solely a transactional economic exercise, the lack of preparedness for post-secondary levels should surprise no one.
I can only imagine that the intellectual malaise has become more widespread. So long as we reward that form of incuriosity and treat education as solely a transactional economic exercise, the lack of preparedness for post-secondary levels should surprise no one.
There seems to be a rise in some sort of 'anti-intellectual' sentiment that has gotten popular over the decades. For me, I saw similar things on Facebook in 2009 when I graduated.
I suspect if you go back a decade again, to the late 1990s, you may find some prevalence there. I'm unsure of its origins, but it seems more prominent with middle aged and younger millennials and gen z.
I never see nor hear of this sentiment from Gen X or older millennials.
I think in some respects, it mirrors the rise of anti-corporate anti-elite thinking. That these mandatory books put in front of are used as tools of the apparatus that perpetuate systemic societal ills.
Historically though, the counter culture thing to do was to read lots of literature - often literature published by small outlets and other controversial pieces however there was an expectation of simply reading and learning for the greater good.
I suspect if you go back a decade again, to the late 1990s, you may find some prevalence there. I'm unsure of its origins, but it seems more prominent with middle aged and younger millennials and gen z.
I never see nor hear of this sentiment from Gen X or older millennials.
I think in some respects, it mirrors the rise of anti-corporate anti-elite thinking. That these mandatory books put in front of are used as tools of the apparatus that perpetuate systemic societal ills.
Historically though, the counter culture thing to do was to read lots of literature - often literature published by small outlets and other controversial pieces however there was an expectation of simply reading and learning for the greater good.
The "average" college student description fits Harvard students quite well.
Harvard used to offer a "shopping week" at the beginning of each semester, so the students could attend classes and then decide to enroll or not. Needless to say, it devolved into a prof arbitrage, where no student would take a class if prof required attendance, frequent homework, or strict no make-up policy. It was abandoned last year.
Anti-affirmative action lawsuit against Harvard revealed that admins and profs had known that most of AA and DEI types would fail and never graduate, or would have to change to non-stem fields. So, they offered layers, upon layers of extra-classrooms (dorm based) help - recitations by grad students, group P-setting, free tutoring, emergency tutoring on exam nights, etc - just to keep the graduation rates up. So students stop going to classes, never bothered to take notes or even open a textbook, just attend the help session on the eve of quizzes/exams!
MIT isn't far behind, it offers 6 different version of physics 1 (8.01, 8.011, 8.012, 8.01L, ES.801, ES.8012). So most students just need to pick the right class and they're guaranteed to pass, why bother with the details.
Cell phones are just an obvious symptom, they're not the cause. The more expensive & elitist the college education gets, the more transactional the students will regard it.
Harvard used to offer a "shopping week" at the beginning of each semester, so the students could attend classes and then decide to enroll or not. Needless to say, it devolved into a prof arbitrage, where no student would take a class if prof required attendance, frequent homework, or strict no make-up policy. It was abandoned last year.
Anti-affirmative action lawsuit against Harvard revealed that admins and profs had known that most of AA and DEI types would fail and never graduate, or would have to change to non-stem fields. So, they offered layers, upon layers of extra-classrooms (dorm based) help - recitations by grad students, group P-setting, free tutoring, emergency tutoring on exam nights, etc - just to keep the graduation rates up. So students stop going to classes, never bothered to take notes or even open a textbook, just attend the help session on the eve of quizzes/exams!
MIT isn't far behind, it offers 6 different version of physics 1 (8.01, 8.011, 8.012, 8.01L, ES.801, ES.8012). So most students just need to pick the right class and they're guaranteed to pass, why bother with the details.
Cell phones are just an obvious symptom, they're not the cause. The more expensive & elitist the college education gets, the more transactional the students will regard it.
Are students failing school at a high rate? Because it sound like they should be
Schools aren't allowed to have standards for student achievement levels any more. Thus, everyone passes. This is the nash equilibrium of school funding being dependent on "student outcomes."
At the college level, rankings also rely heavily on 4- and 6-year graduation rates. Administrators notice that and put pressure on processors not to fail students.
At the college level, rankings also rely heavily on 4- and 6-year graduation rates. Administrators notice that and put pressure on processors not to fail students.
Not university, but an interesting related post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1jmsp7n/my_6th_gr...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1jmsp7n/my_6th_gr...
You're not allowed to fail students. My 10th grade teacher friend rants constantly about how parents call his boss demanding he pass their kids who haven't handed in a single piece of homework and failed all exams, and he gets forced to pass them.
No, because the university doesn't want to earn less money. The more people the sell diplomas to, the better!
Where I work, we are required to write a substantial number of documents to "express our thoughts for leadership team clearly". At one point, I remember spent every single moment of my daily life at work to think about every word, sentence and paragraph that I put down in a technical document. At some point I was skeptical that all this effort was worthy as the whole point of writing is to communicate ideas. If the document was under the microscope for "nit bits" then we lost the original intention. Unless, I'm publishing a book for example.
Now with LLM, I think everyone at work uses it to generate documents. And then, we all just use LLM to summarize the documents for us in a few paragraphs. The whole exercise is now a waste of time.
Document writing culture is great but I'm starting to wonder the real benefits in the erabof LLM. To demonstrate this point, I asked my team to just create slides for the next sync up, something that is frowned upon in my culture. To my surprise, the meeting seems to be very productive with everyone engages in the discussion and not bogged down too much in reading for 30 minutes then discuss. It was just: 1) agenda for today 2) slides 3) q&a
I think we cut about 50% of everyone time for that monthly meeting.
Now with LLM, I think everyone at work uses it to generate documents. And then, we all just use LLM to summarize the documents for us in a few paragraphs. The whole exercise is now a waste of time.
Document writing culture is great but I'm starting to wonder the real benefits in the erabof LLM. To demonstrate this point, I asked my team to just create slides for the next sync up, something that is frowned upon in my culture. To my surprise, the meeting seems to be very productive with everyone engages in the discussion and not bogged down too much in reading for 30 minutes then discuss. It was just: 1) agenda for today 2) slides 3) q&a
I think we cut about 50% of everyone time for that monthly meeting.
>everyone at work uses it to generate documents. And then, we all just use LLM to summarize the documents for us in a few paragraphs.
Thought that was just a tongue in cheek joke. Hope that doesn't become widespread...
Thought that was just a tongue in cheek joke. Hope that doesn't become widespread...
It makes sense. Many reasons I write the documents conflict with how it will be used.
I often write a ton of bloat in documentation to seem impressive or comprehensive. I put in my performance review once that I contributed over half the total pages. Nobody checked that I added value. They checked that I added pages.
It isn't meant to be useful as I am not a meaningful shareholder, so I don't care if the user's time is well spent reading it. I work for my boss, not the user.
So both sides using LLMs makes sense, as their incentives are different.
I often write a ton of bloat in documentation to seem impressive or comprehensive. I put in my performance review once that I contributed over half the total pages. Nobody checked that I added value. They checked that I added pages.
It isn't meant to be useful as I am not a meaningful shareholder, so I don't care if the user's time is well spent reading it. I work for my boss, not the user.
So both sides using LLMs makes sense, as their incentives are different.
It exactly matches the meme where people use LLMs to expand some bullet points to a full document, and then other people use LLMs to convert a full document to some bullet points.
I think it's impossible to tell who is telling any kind of truth online, or who is just "vibe posting"
I think it's impossible to tell who is telling any kind of truth online, or who is just "vibe posting"
Yes, students are generally transactional. So give them a quiz on the reading and then start your discussion. It's been working for me for 25 years. My students were great at the beginning of my career and they're still great now.
I'm about to graduate and can say professors who did this always had the most engaged students (after half dropped the class from <50% quiz grades). I personally found it annoying as it felt like I was in high school again, but if I was a professor I'd do it too.
So you teach something that doesn’t involve any writing? Or you have absurdly high-performing students.
Kids are absolutely illiterate, now, and it has nothing to do with “transactional” anything (witness the fact that the article says they’ve been transactional for this professor’s entire career and you didn’t notice).
You can argue it doesn’t matter and reading is dumb now that we have TikTok, but there’s no objective way to say that kids are currently reading and writing at grade standards at any level of school.
Kids are absolutely illiterate, now, and it has nothing to do with “transactional” anything (witness the fact that the article says they’ve been transactional for this professor’s entire career and you didn’t notice).
You can argue it doesn’t matter and reading is dumb now that we have TikTok, but there’s no objective way to say that kids are currently reading and writing at grade standards at any level of school.
Of course I noticed the statement that students have always been transactional. I agree with it.
I don't think my students are unusual. Perhaps the situation in Canada is better than wherever you live.
I don't think my students are unusual. Perhaps the situation in Canada is better than wherever you live.
While the issue raised is valid, and the article makes some good points, the author seems to want an unreasonable level of control over students.
> Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.”
Class is optional. Students are paying for a service, they are not required to come to class nor do the work. If a student chooses to do the abovementioned and fails, it is their choice and their problem. Let people make their own decisions.
>They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. … I’ve even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect.
I wonder why people don’t want to come to your class.
> Last semester I had a good student tell me, “hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.”
The good student should get a life or join some Stasi-inspired organization. This is scary, why can't we just leave people alone?
> Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.”
Class is optional. Students are paying for a service, they are not required to come to class nor do the work. If a student chooses to do the abovementioned and fails, it is their choice and their problem. Let people make their own decisions.
>They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. … I’ve even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect.
I wonder why people don’t want to come to your class.
> Last semester I had a good student tell me, “hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.”
The good student should get a life or join some Stasi-inspired organization. This is scary, why can't we just leave people alone?
I still recall (as a student) challenging the colleges' decision to drop calc 2 and 3 from my EE program almost 20 years ago because the new students couldn't pass them. I had already taken them and couldn't imagine how students would be able to fully grasp EE fundamentals without them. But the college wasn't hearing it. They were replaced with non-core electives.
Who needs electromagnetism in an EE course anyways?
Where I live you need to take an exam to become a Professional Engineer (legal title) and you would be cooked — for good reason — if you could not do calculus.
Where I live you need to take an exam to become a Professional Engineer (legal title) and you would be cooked — for good reason — if you could not do calculus.
Excuse me! No calculus in an EE course?
Calculus 1 remained, but that's hardly enough to develop an intuitive understanding of why things behave as they do or how to begin analyzing them.
But this isn't an isolated case - this has been widespread ever since the education system adopted the "no child left behind" policies. They now teach to the lowest common denominator instead of valuing competence, not to mention excellence.
But this isn't an isolated case - this has been widespread ever since the education system adopted the "no child left behind" policies. They now teach to the lowest common denominator instead of valuing competence, not to mention excellence.
How did you deal with anything apart from idealised DC circuits?
Like I said in my post - this affected subsequent cohorts. My cohort did the full curriculum of calc 1, 2 and 3 (differential & multivariate calc). I was trying to preserve that for those who came after us.
I saw an interesting post on LessWrong[1] that essentially argues education got so bad because all the education studies are using metrics biased towards the bottom. If you can't measure improvement in the top (10% for standardized tests, 80% for typical definitions of 'achievement'), and then you tie money to which schools are measurably improving learning outcomes, you incentivize schools to teach to the bottom. You end up with schools desparately trying not to suspend/expel students, because it looks bad on their metrics and decreases their funding, while holding back their more diligent students as teachers/babysitters for the less diligent students.
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LPyqPrgtyWwizJxKP/how-do-we-...
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LPyqPrgtyWwizJxKP/how-do-we-...
> The students cheat. I’ve written about cheating in “Why AI is Destroying Academic Integrity,” so I won’t repeat it here, but the cheating tsunami has definitely changed what assignments I give. I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop. Sadly, not writing exacerbates their illiteracy; writing is a muscle and dedicated writing is a workout for the mind as well as the pen.
In the future we'll feed Underground Man through an AI, have it change all the proper nouns to some other set of names, defined per student and thereby watermarking the text to that specific student. Can only read it on a school issued e-paper device so the user can't easily extract the text without a camera and OCR. Then each exam question is rendered per student based on their versions, so an AI model won't know which text this pertains to.
In the future we'll feed Underground Man through an AI, have it change all the proper nouns to some other set of names, defined per student and thereby watermarking the text to that specific student. Can only read it on a school issued e-paper device so the user can't easily extract the text without a camera and OCR. Then each exam question is rendered per student based on their versions, so an AI model won't know which text this pertains to.
This tracks with my experience in a regional state school business program about 15 years ago, only it has gotten considerably worse by the authors' description. It was horrifying to realize that these people would eventually become my manager, or worse, C-suite.
Intellectualism is at all-time lows. Weep!
Intellectualism is at all-time lows. Weep!
> I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop.
One idea is to not ask for the papers back. When I was in University it was very much impressed upon me that writing papers was for my own benefit. All our marks came from end of year exams where we were essentially writing a paper in three hours under exam conditions.
Accordingly — and this obviously only works in a syllabus where grades are awarded only on exam results — nothing says “this is for you not for me” more than not even asking for the papers to be submitted.
(Our papers were marked but only with hints. The marks didn’t count and we went through each paper as a class, together, so could essentially mark them ourselves based on the points we did and did not raise.)
One idea is to not ask for the papers back. When I was in University it was very much impressed upon me that writing papers was for my own benefit. All our marks came from end of year exams where we were essentially writing a paper in three hours under exam conditions.
Accordingly — and this obviously only works in a syllabus where grades are awarded only on exam results — nothing says “this is for you not for me” more than not even asking for the papers to be submitted.
(Our papers were marked but only with hints. The marks didn’t count and we went through each paper as a class, together, so could essentially mark them ourselves based on the points we did and did not raise.)
Given what the author says about student behavior, this would only result in 99% of them failing the course.
And upon failing the course, the students and their parents sue the university for failing to award a degree. They have, after all, been paying tuition fees of tens of thousands of dollars for the last four years. They damn well expect a degree in return!
In response, universities remove degree grading altogether. As your bachelors degree is now guaranteed, graduation is purely ceremonial. Matriculation immediately awards you the degree of Baccalareus Expectum which automatically converts to Baccalareus Artium after paying for 8 semesters.
These can optionally be paid in advance and, if so, the bachelors degree (or masters, if you pay for 16 semesters) will be available immediately. Attendance is encouraged but optional.
Backlash against a lack of real grades starts to build — without exams or marking, all degrees are the same. Institutions use actuarial tables and AI to determine what grade you would have achieved based on upbringing and family background. Dynamic pricing means the degrees costs less for the rich. Lower class families are able to buy their bloodline a ticket to the elite by proving they are worth it: paying full price.
If you think you are elite material, you can take out a loan of course. Why care about the burden of repayments when you’ll be the next superstar lawyer, programmer, analyst, quant, consultant, etc., right? Instead of an end of year exam to prove yourself you can instead prove yourself by paying off that student loan! Go bears!
In response, universities remove degree grading altogether. As your bachelors degree is now guaranteed, graduation is purely ceremonial. Matriculation immediately awards you the degree of Baccalareus Expectum which automatically converts to Baccalareus Artium after paying for 8 semesters.
These can optionally be paid in advance and, if so, the bachelors degree (or masters, if you pay for 16 semesters) will be available immediately. Attendance is encouraged but optional.
Backlash against a lack of real grades starts to build — without exams or marking, all degrees are the same. Institutions use actuarial tables and AI to determine what grade you would have achieved based on upbringing and family background. Dynamic pricing means the degrees costs less for the rich. Lower class families are able to buy their bloodline a ticket to the elite by proving they are worth it: paying full price.
If you think you are elite material, you can take out a loan of course. Why care about the burden of repayments when you’ll be the next superstar lawyer, programmer, analyst, quant, consultant, etc., right? Instead of an end of year exam to prove yourself you can instead prove yourself by paying off that student loan! Go bears!
the US model has focused less on exams and more on take-home assignments. this can be better because most people perform better without artificial pressure, and it's possible to ask deeper questions than on a timed exam. it's just that it is not viable as of this year.
> All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
Is that considered cheap in the US? Do people not do like 5 courses per semester?
Is that considered cheap in the US? Do people not do like 5 courses per semester?
Yes. Most textbooks retail in the ~$200 range. I remember that I had one class in college that had such a long list of recommended textbooks (on top of two required texts) that buying all the course materials would cost $3000 retail, and this was 10 years ago.
Pearson make great money charging obscene amounts for books. In many subjects they'll have some online component so if you thought you could get away with using a second hand copy of last year's edition they'll make you have to pay for the online access section separately regardless.
Considering these courses included assigned reading, and that total would include multiple novels, yes, that is cheap.
I recently graduated from university, and I share some of these views. I became particularly frustrated by the school's practice of lowering the level of courses to allow more students to pass.
Before I started, a teacher was fired for failing too many students, so there is definitely a trend toward reducing the quality. But I got through my master of science just as the AI chatbots rose to the mainstream, already frustrated that the courses could have easily included 30% more material.
I don't even want to imagine how bad things get when people currently in middle school or high school reach university after having had access to "word salad machines" their whole schooling.
Before I started, a teacher was fired for failing too many students, so there is definitely a trend toward reducing the quality. But I got through my master of science just as the AI chatbots rose to the mainstream, already frustrated that the courses could have easily included 30% more material.
I don't even want to imagine how bad things get when people currently in middle school or high school reach university after having had access to "word salad machines" their whole schooling.
In case ya didn't get to the conclusion:
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
This is a brilliant, beautiful last paragraph. This writer cares and is crying out for help, but sadly none will probably come.
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
This is a brilliant, beautiful last paragraph. This writer cares and is crying out for help, but sadly none will probably come.
"This is not an educational system problem, this is a societal problem. What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down."
Sounds like an educational system problem.
I find it very odd the need to blame phones for everything. POTUS probably can't read a serious novel cover to cover, few of the senior managers at my work can, these kids are all going to pass college despite not being able to do it, it's a basic question of incentives.
Sounds like an educational system problem.
I find it very odd the need to blame phones for everything. POTUS probably can't read a serious novel cover to cover, few of the senior managers at my work can, these kids are all going to pass college despite not being able to do it, it's a basic question of incentives.
I speculate that not a few of them are paying some attention to what brings power and influence in the world, and see that the most powerful man in the world is the opposite of what college would form them into if given the chance.
It’s hard to believe in the system we’ve got going.
It’s hard to believe in the system we’ve got going.
As a college student in the past there have been few times when I found it worth it to purchase the course text book.
The quality of the text books themselves have also degraded over time which usually end up being a copy and paste from the previous year with different problems.
The average college student must also juggle 4 to 5 rigorous classes that each demand 3 to 4 hours of homework in a 24 hour day. It makes it very difficult to spend more than the bare minimum on any particular concept if you want to stay a float.
I do agree that the lack of attention span the writer points out is a real problem. I have seen few people even have the ability to read a textbook cover to cover.
The average college student must also juggle 4 to 5 rigorous classes that each demand 3 to 4 hours of homework in a 24 hour day. It makes it very difficult to spend more than the bare minimum on any particular concept if you want to stay a float.
I do agree that the lack of attention span the writer points out is a real problem. I have seen few people even have the ability to read a textbook cover to cover.
Are colleges reducing admissions standards to compensate for this? If anything, it sounds like admissions are vastly more competitive today than when I applied 20 years ago because students are more capable.
Admission score is a bad metric for passing university. Raising it will proportionally push out both the good and the bad. The problems outlined in the article are amplified in higher education, where students have to self-regulate their work, as opposed to lower levels, where you're more "forced."
Taking in the students and letting them fail is more fair. But it's also unfair to decent students if the level of education is dropped to make more students pass.
Taking in the students and letting them fail is more fair. But it's also unfair to decent students if the level of education is dropped to make more students pass.
I doubt it for a few reasons:
- The SAT has been bastardized as a test and no longer effectively measures this stuff
- College admissions have deemphasized the SAT and other standardized tests of reading comprehension
- Elite college admissions is lousy with "consultants" who workshop students' essays to ensure they've got a better chance of admission
That being said, if you were going to find the kids who CAN read, you would probably find them at elite schools.
- The SAT has been bastardized as a test and no longer effectively measures this stuff
- College admissions have deemphasized the SAT and other standardized tests of reading comprehension
- Elite college admissions is lousy with "consultants" who workshop students' essays to ensure they've got a better chance of admission
That being said, if you were going to find the kids who CAN read, you would probably find them at elite schools.
I doubt that the SATs were ever that effective at screening this sort of thing, at least for the past several decades. They're an aptitude test.
By the time you're graduating secondary school you should be able to demonstrate end-to-end ability in multiple subjects (in something like an AP or an A-Level), which should be a better proxy for doing well in university than something as handwavey as the SAT.
By the time you're graduating secondary school you should be able to demonstrate end-to-end ability in multiple subjects (in something like an AP or an A-Level), which should be a better proxy for doing well in university than something as handwavey as the SAT.
SAT scores track pretty damn well with college success. Thats why schools are quietly reintroducing them as part of admissions since the "no SAT" policy fucked up kids who weren't cutting it.
In the absence of a better standardised test, I don't doubt it. However, I really don't think that the SAT does a good job of testing the kind of longer-form literacy that the OP is talking about. I showed the SAT English component to a British A-level English teacher a few weeks ago, and after reading a dozen questions he was red with rage, shouting about how idiotic it was to ask such asinine questions under such a heavy time pressure.
I guess I sorta can see what you're talking about, but from what I remember, the English section was easy BECAUSE it was so asinine. It was generally obvious how the question was guiding you to the solution.
This specific thing, I don't know one way or the other. But the old SAT was basically an IQ test that happened to be out of 1600.
The top schools can compete for the best students, but below that, not so much, just due to basic demographics--the number of high school grads is dropping.
A big part of this is that too many kids are going to college. Less than 2/3 who begin a 4-year degree program will graduate.
We’re pushing kids who are not suited to higher education into it because of credential inflation. As more kids get a certain level of credential, others are forced to seek those credentials to keep up. It’s a tragically wasteful way to signal fitness to employers.
This has been spurred on by government loan guarantees and other means of assistance, which create demand, which drives prices up. The universities don’t escape blame here. The author is getting these ludicrous pep talks from administration because they must play the charade to keep business booming. Nothing more. They’re selling a crap product to people who don’t benefit from it.
We’re pushing kids who are not suited to higher education into it because of credential inflation. As more kids get a certain level of credential, others are forced to seek those credentials to keep up. It’s a tragically wasteful way to signal fitness to employers.
This has been spurred on by government loan guarantees and other means of assistance, which create demand, which drives prices up. The universities don’t escape blame here. The author is getting these ludicrous pep talks from administration because they must play the charade to keep business booming. Nothing more. They’re selling a crap product to people who don’t benefit from it.
I'm in my thirties. I remember most of these things being true a decade ago. Engineers in training failed the your/you're test. Some people read, but most people did not. We forget that the same ignorance is the norm among people our age because our paths with those people have split years ago. A lot of the behavioural complaints at the end of this post could have been made about me. I didn't have enough time to care about all the things that were forced down my throat. They seemed pointless anyway. I had mandatory French and photography classes to become a software engineer. I'd have enjoyed those if I wasn't working night shifts at a petrol station to pay for them.
It's important to remember that those are very young people, right out of high school. We expect then to have skills they're likely not honing in a no-child-left-behind environment. Above all we expect them to understand the importance of all this, even though they have little to no experience as adults.
Perhaps we're just slowly turning into boomers, shaking our fist at "kids these days".
It's important to remember that those are very young people, right out of high school. We expect then to have skills they're likely not honing in a no-child-left-behind environment. Above all we expect them to understand the importance of all this, even though they have little to no experience as adults.
Perhaps we're just slowly turning into boomers, shaking our fist at "kids these days".
> I'm in my thirties. I remember most of these things being true a decade ago.
The author has been a professor and teaching for over 30 years. Presumably he would not be writing this if the type and scale of the problem hadn't changed in that time.
The author has been a professor and teaching for over 30 years. Presumably he would not be writing this if the type and scale of the problem hadn't changed in that time.
Could it be that the author changed as a person, sees the past with rose-tinted glasses, or fails to recognise that the context changed in the last 30 years?
That seems less likely. What would motivate that change?
Matriculating into college with a phone addiction is akin to starting off with executive functioning impairments. I was in college 20 years ago and was probably addicted to the Internet, but I didn't have wifi and a laptop with me at all times, so it wasn't ubiquitous, the way phones are now.
Yeah, I have an arts degree and twenty years ago I know there was chronic absenteeism in sociology classes because I was chronically absent in sociology. I also couldn't do all the readings each week because I had both homework and other readings and so I had to be strategic, especially when I needed to start my own readings for all the papers I had to write. It's possible this poor professor's readings end up on people's ignore pile.
I'm a tech optimist, but I struggle to see a fast solution to the problems described by this article that doesn't involve ending apps and screens for good.
I've been hearing this from middle school English teacher friends (plural) for a while. The last ~15 years have seen a decline every single year in reading comprehension, to the point that ordinary middle-of-the-road books from the 80s or 90s are beyond the ability of gifted students in the same grade to understand without great difficulty.
The chief problem seems to be language complexity and especially holding on to a thought for more than a few words. Even something like The Outsiders will sometimes expect you to keep a few plates spinning in your head until the author takes them back from you a couple sentences or maybe a whole paragraph later. This is a skill especially exercised by reading poetry, as it tends to feature a lot of that holding-onto-context through multiple clauses thing, waiting for the meaning to be resolved.
They can't do that.
They also increasingly find perspectives other than the first person, in fiction, uncomfortable to read.
The chief problem seems to be language complexity and especially holding on to a thought for more than a few words. Even something like The Outsiders will sometimes expect you to keep a few plates spinning in your head until the author takes them back from you a couple sentences or maybe a whole paragraph later. This is a skill especially exercised by reading poetry, as it tends to feature a lot of that holding-onto-context through multiple clauses thing, waiting for the meaning to be resolved.
They can't do that.
They also increasingly find perspectives other than the first person, in fiction, uncomfortable to read.
> The last ~15 years have seen a decline every single year in reading comprehension, to the point that ordinary middle-of-the-road books from the 80s or 90s are beyond the ability of gifted students in the same grade to understand without great difficulty.
I think this is true, but I would disagree with the statement about gifted kids. I recently had the pleasure of reading some essays produced by A-level English students at a nearby school, and I was absolutely chuffed reading them. The mediocre ones were pretty mediocre, and there was definitely some ChatGPT drivel in there, but the ones from the top of the class were genuinely wonderful. The top students were writing beautiful (and insightful) prose, far better than what I could have done at their age. Don't write off the whole generation.
I think this is true, but I would disagree with the statement about gifted kids. I recently had the pleasure of reading some essays produced by A-level English students at a nearby school, and I was absolutely chuffed reading them. The mediocre ones were pretty mediocre, and there was definitely some ChatGPT drivel in there, but the ones from the top of the class were genuinely wonderful. The top students were writing beautiful (and insightful) prose, far better than what I could have done at their age. Don't write off the whole generation.
None of this is all or nothing. The school could offer catch-up classes. The school and the professor could test and refuse registration in a class for students that are missing the prerequisites. Which means they would need to test at the beginning of the class - and extra work. The school could offer a mechanism for doing that without letting the students stranded with no classes they can register into. etc, etc.
But yeah, of course it's absurd to expect one professor to run this on their own when it's really a school-level issue.
For me as the student, it has always been frustrating to see a professor start the class material WAY back from what they stated as the prerequisites. (When it was too late for me to switch to another class - as least at conferences I can walk out and do something else.)
For me as the professor, it was frustrating that there was no framework at the school to address the problem. The problem was harder than "do I flunk them?", it was "who do I teach for?" It would be part of my job to change this - if things were structured for this to be part of my job. At some schools it is, at others not.
But yeah, of course it's absurd to expect one professor to run this on their own when it's really a school-level issue.
For me as the student, it has always been frustrating to see a professor start the class material WAY back from what they stated as the prerequisites. (When it was too late for me to switch to another class - as least at conferences I can walk out and do something else.)
For me as the professor, it was frustrating that there was no framework at the school to address the problem. The problem was harder than "do I flunk them?", it was "who do I teach for?" It would be part of my job to change this - if things were structured for this to be part of my job. At some schools it is, at others not.
I can agree with the shrinking attention span thing, i can often notice it with my peers even when small talking, though many people who are not interested at all in the subjects and are not going to invest any effort in it, usually drop out within the first year.
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
That said this is a slight romanticization of the position you are in, because in my experience a minority of teachers are usually invested in making sure their subject is appreciated and understood.
Many professors are first and foremost researchers that do teaching as a part time job, I've had teachers that clearly didn't even bother to make sure that students could clearly read what's on the blackboard, i had to skip some classes solely for that reason, i often felt guilt for it. I've had a teacher that explicitly said that we should read a book covering the lesson before going to the class at all, in my eyes this was all a lazy excuse for a course that was rushed because the time didn't allow for a proper presentation of the subject, all the while there were almost useless classes to fill the gaps, i think my university has serious time allocation problems, i struggled a lot with those kind of subjects because i had the expectation of at least have a somewhat rough idea of the topics when going back home from class, those classes didn't satisfy this and this left me quite anxious(i was, and still am also coping with loneliness), because i had to do more work on-top of household chores and keeping myself fed, i think most professors don't realize this and I think it's because most of them didn't have to move across different cities for hundreds of kilometers to attend university, and they also had less financial pressure (we have very few state-owned campuses in my European country).
Did i mention that many of them also refuse to record/stream the classes even though all the cameras and software are already set up?
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
That said this is a slight romanticization of the position you are in, because in my experience a minority of teachers are usually invested in making sure their subject is appreciated and understood.
Many professors are first and foremost researchers that do teaching as a part time job, I've had teachers that clearly didn't even bother to make sure that students could clearly read what's on the blackboard, i had to skip some classes solely for that reason, i often felt guilt for it. I've had a teacher that explicitly said that we should read a book covering the lesson before going to the class at all, in my eyes this was all a lazy excuse for a course that was rushed because the time didn't allow for a proper presentation of the subject, all the while there were almost useless classes to fill the gaps, i think my university has serious time allocation problems, i struggled a lot with those kind of subjects because i had the expectation of at least have a somewhat rough idea of the topics when going back home from class, those classes didn't satisfy this and this left me quite anxious(i was, and still am also coping with loneliness), because i had to do more work on-top of household chores and keeping myself fed, i think most professors don't realize this and I think it's because most of them didn't have to move across different cities for hundreds of kilometers to attend university, and they also had less financial pressure (we have very few state-owned campuses in my European country).
Did i mention that many of them also refuse to record/stream the classes even though all the cameras and software are already set up?
The good news for students is being "above average" appears to have gotten easier.
The author is careful to point out he is describing "average" students. This implies there are still good students. That has not changed.
The author mentions one:
"Last semester I had a good student tell me, "hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.""
The author is careful to point out he is describing "average" students. This implies there are still good students. That has not changed.
The author mentions one:
"Last semester I had a good student tell me, "hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.""
PISA scores for the US are fairly good and stable in Reading and Science, especially compared to the OECD average. It's Math that has taken a hit over time.
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volum...
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volum...
This is completely useless. They also add countries so the average trend is meaningless.
Maybe it's a bad measure.
It would still be a million times better than anecdotes and ragebait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St...
> Policy-makers in most participating countries see PISA as an important indicator of system performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St...
> Policy-makers in most participating countries see PISA as an important indicator of system performance
I know a lot of people who work at the OECD and the place is a bullshit-factory.
Do they have any specific reasons? Haven't heard that sentiment before so curious to learn something new
My impression is that they have a lot of careerist people who say the right things even if they don't really understand what they're saying. And because the scope of research is so broad, a lot of the management managing these people are either generalists and thus can't evaluate the work or also bullshitters.
Colleges are driven by profit. When I was in school, a tuition scholarship meant a full ride; today, it covers less than half the cost. Schools focus on selling a lifestyle—dorms, dining, and amenities—while classes feel like a side gig. Administrative overhead and bureaucracy have pushed educators even further down the priority list.
It seems the author describes their experience as an undergraduate professor.
Perhaps a critical qualification of this is that the author is a philosophy professor. Humanities departments are losing students and faculty at a great pace.
Would professors in other departments on average have the same experience?
If directionally similar, are STEM professors having the same magnitude of experience?
Perhaps a critical qualification of this is that the author is a philosophy professor. Humanities departments are losing students and faculty at a great pace.
Would professors in other departments on average have the same experience?
If directionally similar, are STEM professors having the same magnitude of experience?
One of the reasons I'm a big fan of Montessori especially in early childhood education is that it's really good at fostering the kind of intrinsic motivation that leads people to want to learn because they have some kind of project that it's going to help them move forward.
College kids are arriving with a transactional mindset because more and more that's what schooling has drilled into them for their entire student experience since grade school.
College used to be a thing people did to "round out" their education. You gain some life experience, read some great literature, debate lofty ideas, and meet friends who will go out into the world with you.
Now — especially when you factor the cost and the loans — people look at it as a checkbox and the evaluation is "what job will this get me."
College kids are arriving with a transactional mindset because more and more that's what schooling has drilled into them for their entire student experience since grade school.
College used to be a thing people did to "round out" their education. You gain some life experience, read some great literature, debate lofty ideas, and meet friends who will go out into the world with you.
Now — especially when you factor the cost and the loans — people look at it as a checkbox and the evaluation is "what job will this get me."
Regarding people not reading books:
My first semester of business school, I realized I opened only half of the books/packets I was told to buy.
I made a decision to see if I could do the next 3 semesters without buying any books or packets.
I think I needed a book once or twice for some specific homework assignments. For the packets, I even took an Ethics in Business class where every week you were supposed to read a case to prepare for class discussion. I would just listen to folks make points for the first 15 minutes, figure out what the case was about and then make a new point based on that. Professor even wrote in my class feedback "you always have a good insight to bring to class discussions."
I mention this to point out that a lot of emphasis is put on textbooks that either:
- the professor doesn't even use but is required to select (one professor stated this explicitly)
- are considered "great!" by the professor but awful at teaching the material
- are pretty good but duplicate what is in the lectures.
My first semester of business school, I realized I opened only half of the books/packets I was told to buy.
I made a decision to see if I could do the next 3 semesters without buying any books or packets.
I think I needed a book once or twice for some specific homework assignments. For the packets, I even took an Ethics in Business class where every week you were supposed to read a case to prepare for class discussion. I would just listen to folks make points for the first 15 minutes, figure out what the case was about and then make a new point based on that. Professor even wrote in my class feedback "you always have a good insight to bring to class discussions."
I mention this to point out that a lot of emphasis is put on textbooks that either:
- the professor doesn't even use but is required to select (one professor stated this explicitly)
- are considered "great!" by the professor but awful at teaching the material
- are pretty good but duplicate what is in the lectures.
My school made it a rule that any book required by the professor had to have at least one copy in the library system. The book could only be checked out in short increments and wasn't supposed to leave the library. Also it may be in 1 of 14 department specific libraries.
I figured this out freshmen year, and didn't buy books the last 3 years. I would just copy pages as needed for homework/readings. I think I probably looked at 10% of the total pages I was told to buy. Most classes would use less than a hundred pages a semester. The best classes the professor just skipped this rigamarole and handed out packets copied from various books directly.
Only very basic 100 and 200 level classes would stick to a standardized curriculum that followed hundreds of pages in a book. Anything challenging used dense material from real technical books or academic papers.
I figured this out freshmen year, and didn't buy books the last 3 years. I would just copy pages as needed for homework/readings. I think I probably looked at 10% of the total pages I was told to buy. Most classes would use less than a hundred pages a semester. The best classes the professor just skipped this rigamarole and handed out packets copied from various books directly.
Only very basic 100 and 200 level classes would stick to a standardized curriculum that followed hundreds of pages in a book. Anything challenging used dense material from real technical books or academic papers.
What would that class be like if no one made an effort to read and study the material though? Just a brag?
Well, the comment you replied to talks about classes where books are secondary to better sources from which to learn the material, like lecture notes and other sources.
Hm?
I had a great college education. The professors were good, and we were all piss-poor and wanted to move up in life. Our college was (still is) in a corner of the world you never think anything good about, not in general, less so academically. So we knew that our college title was essentially worthless, at least the part of it made of paper. But some of it we could wear, in the way we spoke and treated others, and in the way we faced professional settings, and in how we faced life in general. Two decades down the road, I think it turned out great. Mine it's not a unique story; later in life I've met people with similar backgrounds, from completely different parts of the world.
Looking at it now, I realize I had the immense privilege of externalities to keep me laser-focused, and none of the shortcuts, the-quick-money-ways-out that tempt so many.
I had a great college education. The professors were good, and we were all piss-poor and wanted to move up in life. Our college was (still is) in a corner of the world you never think anything good about, not in general, less so academically. So we knew that our college title was essentially worthless, at least the part of it made of paper. But some of it we could wear, in the way we spoke and treated others, and in the way we faced professional settings, and in how we faced life in general. Two decades down the road, I think it turned out great. Mine it's not a unique story; later in life I've met people with similar backgrounds, from completely different parts of the world.
Looking at it now, I realize I had the immense privilege of externalities to keep me laser-focused, and none of the shortcuts, the-quick-money-ways-out that tempt so many.
While phones and social media certainly contribute, I think that the main problem is elsewhere – most of young people just refuse to take any responsibility. I'm in my sixties now and remember that since first grade it was solely my responsibility to study. Yes, my grandmother and mother helped, reminded me things etc, but I wasn't allowed to say "but teacher didn't ...". It was sharply cut with "nobody cares, you have books and friends and can study yourself".
Now while I was a teacher I didn't see a single student with parents like this. It was always teachers' fault if a kid didn't learn, got a bad grade, just didn't listen or behaved like an asshole.
Now while I was a teacher I didn't see a single student with parents like this. It was always teachers' fault if a kid didn't learn, got a bad grade, just didn't listen or behaved like an asshole.
It's a combination of phones and that we live in the age of flake. Relevant quotes
> It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones...They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones.
> Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Disappearing students. Students routinely just vanish at some point during the semester. They don’t officially drop out or withdraw from the course, they simply quit coming.
The problems of society obviously bleed into college life.
> It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones...They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones.
> Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Disappearing students. Students routinely just vanish at some point during the semester. They don’t officially drop out or withdraw from the course, they simply quit coming.
The problems of society obviously bleed into college life.
It has always been transactional. There were always a few gems in every class who actually had the brains and/or drive to dig into the subject and enjoy it. A big chunk were there to have a good time with friends and class is something they just went through. The rest hated it but didn't have a choice. This composition has been there forever.
Its like gym - everyone should exercise but only a few love it and the rest would rather get the muscles without putting in the effort. The gym rats and the purists are still enjoying real gains. However, now the reluctant majority has access to steroids called LLMs that are providing hollow gains in form of useless degrees and certifications while no one seems to care about the long term damage.
Its like gym - everyone should exercise but only a few love it and the rest would rather get the muscles without putting in the effort. The gym rats and the purists are still enjoying real gains. However, now the reluctant majority has access to steroids called LLMs that are providing hollow gains in form of useless degrees and certifications while no one seems to care about the long term damage.
[deleted]
The only point I’d argue with this professor: give students your slides by default. In my graduate program, this is done for every class. As a working professional, slides are regularly shared so information can be reviewed later.
One thing I find surprising about this is the overlap between a) university is getting more and more expensive and b) students are caring less and less about using that time usefully.
Is this because they know you are going to grade on a curve? So it's a sort of cooperative race to the bottom?
Otherwise you would think that the extreme expense of university would make people work harder, and care more.
Sidenote: I graduated university in 2005. Facebook came out for the general public in 2006. It's weird to think I was the last graduate class without generalised social media and smartphones.
Is this because they know you are going to grade on a curve? So it's a sort of cooperative race to the bottom?
Otherwise you would think that the extreme expense of university would make people work harder, and care more.
Sidenote: I graduated university in 2005. Facebook came out for the general public in 2006. It's weird to think I was the last graduate class without generalised social media and smartphones.
This was true when I was in college (+10 years ago). I remember being in a programming language theory class where the students and the professor had a falling out. He remains one of my favorite professors to this day because he was a very new professor and you could tell the spark hadn't left him yet. He was so full of energy and excitement talking about the subject of programming languages and you could really feel yourself absorbing it through mitosis, or at least I could.
Anyways halfway through the course the professor gave us a survey on "how the course was going" (bless him) and he got absolutely reamed. One person complained that they had to learn OCaml, that OCaml was too hard, that the professor didn't do enough to teach them OCaml, and that he would rather the course be taught in Java. The professor, legitimate confusion on his face, said that he had published the course syllabus with multiple resources for learning OCaml and that he had held office hours specifically for people to ask him questions or bring up problems, why hadn't the student come then? Response: "I am too busy, I don't have time to go to office hours." Another girl piped in saying it was "difficult to remember to check the course syllabus every week" and therefore she had "forgotten" to do the reading and therefore she didn't know any OCaml.
I was actually furious. I emailed him after the class and said that all these people were fucking dribbling morons and that he was doing fine and I liked the course and learned a lot. Looking back I'm sure the strong language probably made him feel more awkward than vindicated, but eh.
Anyways halfway through the course the professor gave us a survey on "how the course was going" (bless him) and he got absolutely reamed. One person complained that they had to learn OCaml, that OCaml was too hard, that the professor didn't do enough to teach them OCaml, and that he would rather the course be taught in Java. The professor, legitimate confusion on his face, said that he had published the course syllabus with multiple resources for learning OCaml and that he had held office hours specifically for people to ask him questions or bring up problems, why hadn't the student come then? Response: "I am too busy, I don't have time to go to office hours." Another girl piped in saying it was "difficult to remember to check the course syllabus every week" and therefore she had "forgotten" to do the reading and therefore she didn't know any OCaml.
I was actually furious. I emailed him after the class and said that all these people were fucking dribbling morons and that he was doing fine and I liked the course and learned a lot. Looking back I'm sure the strong language probably made him feel more awkward than vindicated, but eh.
I'm a bit mixed on all these kind of tirades. I imagine a big chunk of most literature undergraduate degrees are people who like the idea of being into literature much more than the kind of work it involves.
At the same time, as someone who was very addicted to the internet but only got a smartphone/broadband (previously having a 40 hour monthly limit) in my late teens I do look back at just how much I read then compared to ever since mournfully. I didn't grow up in a house that valued reading much so it was a lot of work to even get started regularly reading stuff with no knowledge base of what I might even like to start from. I'm still able to read a few semi-challenging novels a year but it's an insane amount of work to get into the zone now and I can't picture teenage me with a smartphone and constant internet access ever managing to build up any kind of habit at all.
As far as writing is concerned, I think how aggressively LLMs want to rephrase everything is a big issue and I'm not sure how it can be resolved. As autoprompts get more and more florid it's probably unsurprising people are going to get lazier and lazier at precisely phrasing anything. I tried using them building out my CV earlier this year and it was a great sounding board but the actual text it was giving me was atrocious.
At the same time, as someone who was very addicted to the internet but only got a smartphone/broadband (previously having a 40 hour monthly limit) in my late teens I do look back at just how much I read then compared to ever since mournfully. I didn't grow up in a house that valued reading much so it was a lot of work to even get started regularly reading stuff with no knowledge base of what I might even like to start from. I'm still able to read a few semi-challenging novels a year but it's an insane amount of work to get into the zone now and I can't picture teenage me with a smartphone and constant internet access ever managing to build up any kind of habit at all.
As far as writing is concerned, I think how aggressively LLMs want to rephrase everything is a big issue and I'm not sure how it can be resolved. As autoprompts get more and more florid it's probably unsurprising people are going to get lazier and lazier at precisely phrasing anything. I tried using them building out my CV earlier this year and it was a great sounding board but the actual text it was giving me was atrocious.
If we are being honest, very few students go to university to learn and even fewer what is taught in classes.
I didn't spend 60K out of intellectual curiosity. I was interested in a ladder to multi six figure tech jobs. The actual classes did nothing to get me into those. Only algorithms was related to that goal. Physics and chemistry certainly didn't do anything for me.
All the things he complains about students not doing? None of them go on a resume. None come up in an interview and it is a rational response to changing incentives.
I didn't spend 60K out of intellectual curiosity. I was interested in a ladder to multi six figure tech jobs. The actual classes did nothing to get me into those. Only algorithms was related to that goal. Physics and chemistry certainly didn't do anything for me.
All the things he complains about students not doing? None of them go on a resume. None come up in an interview and it is a rational response to changing incentives.
[deleted]
There is disturbing evidence of learned helplessness here. "The cheating tsunami has definitely changed what assignments I give", "I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop." What happened to failing students who don't do the work or who cheat? If professors and schools won't enforce standards, then college loses ALL of its utility, and is destined for the scrap heap of history.
'The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.' — ̶S̶̶o̶̶c̶̶r̶̶a̶̶t̶̶e̶̶s̶ ̶ (Kenneth John Freeman, 1907 [thanks to morsch])
For all we know Socrates was correct, and the attitudes did change during his lifetime. History is turbulent, and there is not a straight line from his time to the present. There's plenty of examples of people, children included, behaving differently through a change in time and place. E.g. the difference between a Victorian boarding school and a typical US high school, or the difference before and after the Cultural Revolution in China. Or the difference in behavior between meth addicts and non-addicts.
If meth became widely used, and someone noted the effect this had on how children are behaving, would we also just quote Socrates at them as 'proof' that nothing has changed, because people have been complaining since forever?
If meth became widely used, and someone noted the effect this had on how children are behaving, would we also just quote Socrates at them as 'proof' that nothing has changed, because people have been complaining since forever?
Even if we pretend the quote is real (it was invented in the 1900s), then as you suggest, Socrates might have had a point: Athens was pretty much done for as a meaningful political or even cultural entity within a couple generations of Socrates.
Socrates two most prominent students took power with help of the enemy state, dismantled democracy and installed fairly cruel tyrantship. Socrates himself was against democracy, altrought did not participated nor directly supported the tyranny.
For all we know, his quote refers to these political conflicts where he preferred hierarchy and young preferred democracy.
For all we know, his quote refers to these political conflicts where he preferred hierarchy and young preferred democracy.
Apparently, Kenneth John Freeman, 1907. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/
Careful about bogus “ancient” quotations on this topic, though., the article warns.
Careful about bogus “ancient” quotations on this topic, though., the article warns.
[deleted]
Apocryphal and also irrelevant. If someone were to have made an unwarranted criticism in 5th century BCE Athens, that would not invalidate that class of criticism forever through the end of time.
Plus, we have hard data about reduced attention spans so this is not even about moral panic.
Plus, we have hard data about reduced attention spans so this is not even about moral panic.
Note: The author is aware of this comparison (His reference is Gilgamesh). You may still find it relevant.
This is such a boring fallacious argument. Are you seriously suggesting that over the last 2,500 years there have never been any changes to any generation of children/youths due to any circumstances? Of course not; that's a ridiculous preposition.
Maybe there's a bit of complaining from old coots throughout the ages, but that doesn't mean there are never any structural problems ever. Maybe there are real problems today. And maybe there were real problems in Socrates' time too. Merely posting this without any thought is just dismissive nonsense.
Certainly for the situation today, there are huge changes to how kids are raised. Maybe that has zero effect. Or maybe it does. Either way, whatever Socrates did or didn't say has absolutely no bearing on it.
Maybe there's a bit of complaining from old coots throughout the ages, but that doesn't mean there are never any structural problems ever. Maybe there are real problems today. And maybe there were real problems in Socrates' time too. Merely posting this without any thought is just dismissive nonsense.
Certainly for the situation today, there are huge changes to how kids are raised. Maybe that has zero effect. Or maybe it does. Either way, whatever Socrates did or didn't say has absolutely no bearing on it.
Exactly. There are always the people who complain and the people who defend. They are both not indicative of actual social changes. They're just statement factories. Think deeper about what a statement is actually saying instead of dismissing it for falling under some camp. If it is vapid even on its own, then dismiss it.
On this paticular topic, my take is that as technology has advanced, we have gone from the "technology is harmless" side to the "technology is harmful" side sharply. Books and whatnot are great. TV, ehhh. Video games, mobile phones, social media, LLMs: dangerous, or more optimistically, very tricky to get right. I think it's not strange that these three categories I've laid out occupy vastly distinct time spans. It's exactly the power of a technology that ties into both its development and its impact. I certainly don't get similar experiences from reading a book and watching short form video.
On this paticular topic, my take is that as technology has advanced, we have gone from the "technology is harmless" side to the "technology is harmful" side sharply. Books and whatnot are great. TV, ehhh. Video games, mobile phones, social media, LLMs: dangerous, or more optimistically, very tricky to get right. I think it's not strange that these three categories I've laid out occupy vastly distinct time spans. It's exactly the power of a technology that ties into both its development and its impact. I certainly don't get similar experiences from reading a book and watching short form video.
this post is ironic given that we're talking about an article where a professor is complaining about people's poor reading comprehension. the post you're replying to did not explicitly make any argument, they only quoted someone, and no the quoting of someone with no additional commentary is not an argument - lol
I think it won't be far-fetched to say the current generation of children possibly has the lowest impression of their elders as compared to all previous generations in human history.
Not that you can blame them, honestly, looking at the state of the world despite all wisdom and knowledge being more accessible to everyone than it has ever been...
Not that you can blame them, honestly, looking at the state of the world despite all wisdom and knowledge being more accessible to everyone than it has ever been...
from the literal posted article:
> Worse is the resistance to original thought. What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.
what a world we live in...
> Worse is the resistance to original thought. What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.
what a world we live in...
I feel like this quote exists to be used as an excuse for parents to deploy whatever arbitrary discipline is necessary to make their tyrant children get in line and comply.
I mean the way it's worded just makes you want to strike back at contemptuous kids instead of digging down deeper as to why they might behave this way.
I mean the way it's worded just makes you want to strike back at contemptuous kids instead of digging down deeper as to why they might behave this way.
"all we’re doing is depriving the good students of an education." Umm, no, the students are depriving themselves by being addicted to their phones and online gambling.
The culture is burning. This is how it topples. Through smartphone addiction, gambling, and lack of reading meaningful books.
The culture is burning. This is how it topples. Through smartphone addiction, gambling, and lack of reading meaningful books.
I hope that the author gives banned laptops another shot. I've been able to ban laptops and phones from my classes without issue (at least for grad students). The students even say they appreciate it.
But I recently gave a talk in a colleague's class who allows laptops. Even before I began I had lost 3/4 of the room. The truly interested students closed their laptops and asked questions.
But I recently gave a talk in a colleague's class who allows laptops. Even before I began I had lost 3/4 of the room. The truly interested students closed their laptops and asked questions.
Is this new? My wife was a TA in college back in the 1990s and her main job was reading and grading papers. The vast majority of papers were incoherent and the students seemed to have only a passing familiarity with English (nearly all of the students were lifetime Americans who only spoke English). It's hard to imagine things being worse today if they were so abysmal back then.
Watch John Mulaney's standup about his college asking him for money. He mentions how much money it cost for him to go to school but yet he didn't read and just did drugs. I remember students in class not reading the material either when I was in college in the 2000s. I agree with the article, just adding how things were bad before and now it's worse with phones.
i didnt make it through all the comments but i havent seen anyone mention college sports. from a PURELY financial perspective its the other major reason for college to exist. sports are on life support. its turning into a minor league pro system.
personally, i think this is long overdue and overall good. colleges shouldnt be so sports-centric and i think sports would benefit overall if there more more popular local teams in sports beside baseball and hockey.
the doom and gloom on the state of college sports is loudly lamented on ESPN and the like. learning academics are circling the drain makes me expect to see many colleges shut down.
then i start to think about the midrange medical professionals because my spouse is a nurse. nurses cant LLM their way through college because they have to pass the NCLEX. will colleges only exist for scientists and nurses who need lab access and need to pass a monitored exam to complete their training?
personally, i think this is long overdue and overall good. colleges shouldnt be so sports-centric and i think sports would benefit overall if there more more popular local teams in sports beside baseball and hockey.
the doom and gloom on the state of college sports is loudly lamented on ESPN and the like. learning academics are circling the drain makes me expect to see many colleges shut down.
then i start to think about the midrange medical professionals because my spouse is a nurse. nurses cant LLM their way through college because they have to pass the NCLEX. will colleges only exist for scientists and nurses who need lab access and need to pass a monitored exam to complete their training?
Make them hand-write essays and exams with a pen. Ideally in front of you. This is the only solution to receiving submitted LLM-fodder.
> All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them
I don't think I understand. Are students expected to pay north of $100 per course for textbooks?
If this is the cheap one, how much are the expensive ones? Why is this not bundled up with the tuition fees or why are the textbooks not borrowed from a common library that all students can use?
I don't think I understand. Are students expected to pay north of $100 per course for textbooks?
If this is the cheap one, how much are the expensive ones? Why is this not bundled up with the tuition fees or why are the textbooks not borrowed from a common library that all students can use?
They’re not paying these amounts. They’re borrowing them.
Hence the student debt crisis.
Hence the student debt crisis.
Most of his complaints are understandable, but my goodness please just share the PPT slides, and the lecture notes, too, if they are appropriate for distribution! It's standard practice for the technical courses, at least. Personal notes fill a different niche and are supplemental to the official course notes.
The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
I can’t imagine why one would take a philosophy course if one does not like reading.
I can’t imagine why one would take a philosophy course if one does not like reading.
>The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
It is appalling.
It is appalling.
>The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
The illiteracy level is appalling.
The illiteracy levels are appalling.
Our children aren't appalling! [citation needed]
The illiteracy levels are appalling.
Our children aren't appalling! [citation needed]
It’s a set phrase, a quote of George W. Bush.
People nowadays enrol onto philosophy degrees expecting to learn everything they need from insta and memes. Not even kidding.
> They want me to do their work for them. During the Covid lockdown, faculty bent over backwards in every way we knew how to accommodate students during an unprecedented (in our lifetimes) health crisis. Now students expect that as a matter of routine. I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate. Read the book. Come to office hours for a conversation if you are still confused after the preceding steps. Last week I had an email from a student who essentially asked me to recap an entire week’s worth of lecture material for him prior to yesterday’s midterm. No, I’m not doing that. I’m not writing you a 3000-word email. Try coming to class.
I dunno man. Not writing a 3000 word email is one thing, but if you make a power point an then don't share it electronically, it smells like you are cajoling students to attend your lectures in order to stroke your ego. These people are paying a lot of money to attend your course; if they feel that they would get more value out of looking at your power point without attending your lectures that is not something that should be sneered away. Both as an undergraduate student and a graduate TA I was always very put off by this kind of high-handed bullying instructors would engage in to juice attendance of their courses. Just teach well and evaluate accurately. That's what they're paying you for. They're not paying for you to harass them into being at some inconvenient place at a particular time every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
I dunno man. Not writing a 3000 word email is one thing, but if you make a power point an then don't share it electronically, it smells like you are cajoling students to attend your lectures in order to stroke your ego. These people are paying a lot of money to attend your course; if they feel that they would get more value out of looking at your power point without attending your lectures that is not something that should be sneered away. Both as an undergraduate student and a graduate TA I was always very put off by this kind of high-handed bullying instructors would engage in to juice attendance of their courses. Just teach well and evaluate accurately. That's what they're paying you for. They're not paying for you to harass them into being at some inconvenient place at a particular time every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
I keep hearing from friends and seniors that Gen Z doesn't take accountability for their work, and the sentiments the author has shared in this article are dot to dot relatable.
I really don't care that they lack grammar and prefer short words (no cap fr fr), low attention span is just irritating and hard to deal with.
A lot of people here concentrating on the peripheral details, and not so much on the core argument about basic literacy.
I'm not a lecturer but I have spent too much time on Threads recently, which is almost as bad. And two things are obvious about posters who are student age or thereabouts.
One is that they have a timid and uncurious view of the world which is bizarrely ahistorical. They know about Miyazaki, because Ghibli and anime are nice, but they know virtually nothing about the history of cinema, literature, art, or music.
Nothing made before around 2000 exists for them. Worse, many are actively hostile to it, because it's "problematic" for various reasons, all taken from a standard list of words like "colonial" and "elitist" which - having no functional knowledge of anything before 2000 - they don't entirely understand, but are sure they do.
The other is that many of them are completely colonised by corporate ideology, and completely unaware of it. Success, hustle, grift, attention-farming, social media strategising, personal branding, and the rest - it's their core morality. Even if they're nominally progressive.
So you get a weird kind of pseudo-morality which appears to be socially oriented, but is often just libertarian under a thin veneer.
Everyone was surprised by how Gen Z voted, but when you put these together it's not so surprising at all.
What's happening is that traditional written literacy has been replaced by a new kind of electronic literacy - moving images over text, shallow quick-hit emotional manipulation over deep insights, transience over permanence, and a kind of entitled transactional narcissism driving it all.
I'm not a lecturer but I have spent too much time on Threads recently, which is almost as bad. And two things are obvious about posters who are student age or thereabouts.
One is that they have a timid and uncurious view of the world which is bizarrely ahistorical. They know about Miyazaki, because Ghibli and anime are nice, but they know virtually nothing about the history of cinema, literature, art, or music.
Nothing made before around 2000 exists for them. Worse, many are actively hostile to it, because it's "problematic" for various reasons, all taken from a standard list of words like "colonial" and "elitist" which - having no functional knowledge of anything before 2000 - they don't entirely understand, but are sure they do.
The other is that many of them are completely colonised by corporate ideology, and completely unaware of it. Success, hustle, grift, attention-farming, social media strategising, personal branding, and the rest - it's their core morality. Even if they're nominally progressive.
So you get a weird kind of pseudo-morality which appears to be socially oriented, but is often just libertarian under a thin veneer.
Everyone was surprised by how Gen Z voted, but when you put these together it's not so surprising at all.
What's happening is that traditional written literacy has been replaced by a new kind of electronic literacy - moving images over text, shallow quick-hit emotional manipulation over deep insights, transience over permanence, and a kind of entitled transactional narcissism driving it all.
It's a question of values, the students know the world does not value the experience or education he is providing, and they don't have an intrinsic interest in it. Being able to discuss Sartre will not get them a high paying job, but somehow that type of stuff is part of the liberal arts education.
The fact that all these kids likely missed a year or two of school because of COVID is explanatory.
Part of it is that university has become less and less special. People are going because jobs that don't need degrees are asking for them.
Those students he's describing are exactly like a lot of his high school peers from 35 years ago who didn't go to university.
Those students he's describing are exactly like a lot of his high school peers from 35 years ago who didn't go to university.
Can someone decipher this sentence for me? Other than the undefined acronym I recognise the words but none of them seem to go together in any way that's coherent.
> We’re also an NCAA Division 2 school and I watched one of our graduates become an All-Pro lineman for the Saints.
> We’re also an NCAA Division 2 school and I watched one of our graduates become an All-Pro lineman for the Saints.
The NCAA is the governing body for collegiate sports, of which there are three divisions. Schools that belong to Division 1 typically have the highest level of competition, while Division 3 is the lowest.
The Saints are a professional American Football team. A lineman is a defensive player on a football team. Being selected as an "All-Pro" means the player was voted as one of the best players in his position in the entire league (and I guess by extension, the world) during that season.
This person was an extreme outlier in the sea of otherwise average students/graduates at this school.
The Saints are a professional American Football team. A lineman is a defensive player on a football team. Being selected as an "All-Pro" means the player was voted as one of the best players in his position in the entire league (and I guess by extension, the world) during that season.
This person was an extreme outlier in the sea of otherwise average students/graduates at this school.
As someone who teaches college students, I agree with a lot of this. This sums it up pretty well:
> Students are less respectful of the university experience ---attendance, lateness, e-mails to me about nonsense, less sense of responsibility
The most noticeable dimension for me is this one:
> During the Covid lockdown, faculty bent over backwards in every way we knew how to accommodate students during an unprecedented (in our lifetimes) health crisis. Now students expect that as a matter of routine.
In my experience, no matter what flexibility is given up front (e.g., drop lowest quiz score), there will always be some students who ask for additional accommodations. In particular there seems to be a common belief among students that all deadlines are "soft", and they should be able to turn in any missed work any time before the end of the term. Sometimes they'll expect a late penalty, but it seems like a real shock to many students to be told, "No, if you don't submit the assignment by the deadline, your score is zero."
I taught a little bit online during the pandemic and initially I thought there were some benefits to keeping some things online, but now I'm not so sure. For instance, doing tests online means they don't take up in-class time. But the extent to which people seem willing to cheat or otherwise cut corners has me seriously considering whether I should revert to in-person paper tests.
The article does veer a bit into stuff that seems a bit more questionable to me. Like, I can see not wanting to pay $100 for a textbook --- and this is especially true because students are often jaded by having many classes where they buy a $100 textbook and only need to read a few chapters, so it doesn't seem worth it. Likewise, it seems reasonable to me to provide the lecture slides, although I agree that it's annoying when students pester and pester to get them.
My impression of students' reading and writing abilities is also a more positive than the article author's, although that may be because the school I teach at is more competitive. But it's in the low-level logistics (like attendance) where I see the biggest decline in student behavior.
I should also say that in pretty much every class I teach, there are still a substantial number of engaged and motivated students. It's just that the lower bound for the standard students have for themselves has been lowered even more, and the average has dropped a bit towards that lower bound.
> Students are less respectful of the university experience ---attendance, lateness, e-mails to me about nonsense, less sense of responsibility
The most noticeable dimension for me is this one:
> During the Covid lockdown, faculty bent over backwards in every way we knew how to accommodate students during an unprecedented (in our lifetimes) health crisis. Now students expect that as a matter of routine.
In my experience, no matter what flexibility is given up front (e.g., drop lowest quiz score), there will always be some students who ask for additional accommodations. In particular there seems to be a common belief among students that all deadlines are "soft", and they should be able to turn in any missed work any time before the end of the term. Sometimes they'll expect a late penalty, but it seems like a real shock to many students to be told, "No, if you don't submit the assignment by the deadline, your score is zero."
I taught a little bit online during the pandemic and initially I thought there were some benefits to keeping some things online, but now I'm not so sure. For instance, doing tests online means they don't take up in-class time. But the extent to which people seem willing to cheat or otherwise cut corners has me seriously considering whether I should revert to in-person paper tests.
The article does veer a bit into stuff that seems a bit more questionable to me. Like, I can see not wanting to pay $100 for a textbook --- and this is especially true because students are often jaded by having many classes where they buy a $100 textbook and only need to read a few chapters, so it doesn't seem worth it. Likewise, it seems reasonable to me to provide the lecture slides, although I agree that it's annoying when students pester and pester to get them.
My impression of students' reading and writing abilities is also a more positive than the article author's, although that may be because the school I teach at is more competitive. But it's in the low-level logistics (like attendance) where I see the biggest decline in student behavior.
I should also say that in pretty much every class I teach, there are still a substantial number of engaged and motivated students. It's just that the lower bound for the standard students have for themselves has been lowered even more, and the average has dropped a bit towards that lower bound.
[deleted]
The average college student of today will never be able to afford a house; they are facing a bleak future where even working hard will not help them much. The least we can do is give them smartphones, social media and LLMs in compensation.
I work with several interns who are exceptionally smart, capable, and well-read.
I do see an issue with some where they hop around and don't finish long form projects. But I think thats a function of college where racking up resume filler seems more important these days.
I do see an issue with some where they hop around and don't finish long form projects. But I think thats a function of college where racking up resume filler seems more important these days.
About the short projects. I am a high school senior, and I sometimes jump around between projects / don't finish them because I sometimes struggle to see the point in finishing them. The only projects I can complete are ones where I can see the point of them and how they will be used.
Every year, this ancient topic creaks out of its grave: the young turn old and grumble about the kids. I bet it’s been whining since the Stone Age.
As for "the kids don't read", I doubt it. This was perhaps only true when the movies got sound.
As for "the kids don't read", I doubt it. This was perhaps only true when the movies got sound.
How do we reconcile this with needing very high test scores to get into even the 'ok' universities. A university that is nearby requires 1380 SAT to be competitive and it isn't even close to a name brand, maybe 90th in the US.
To be fair its not that hard to get a 1380 on the SAT.
My cynicism about this article is clear - are you students really worse today? Or do we just have more students and a lower average? Getting students to read and analyze challenging work has never been easy. Why should it be now?
Anyone who writes this down to schools or selection I think is completely missing the authors point. What they are describing, not just the academic but physical and mental change in young people, is everywhere.
People from roughly my age, early thirties and younger, are just chronically heedless. It's not about specific academic tasks it's a general lack of mental and physical acuity. You go in a coffeeshop or a library, you ask for something, if there's a young person behind the counter chances are you get a blank stare or you have to repeat yourself while they have a phone in one hand. Young people in my experience can't focus on long conversations, literally just looking at your face and pay attention.
Ted Gioia is quoted in the piece describing it as "checked out zombies" and that's exactly right. There's so many conversations these days where you basically have to snap your fingers in front of someone's face because they're like a distracted cat or something. I taught a soldering class at a makerspace a few years ago and every young person was physically clumsy, as if they had two left hands. Seniors participating did better than 20 year olds. The author is not just a grumpy old teacher, if you pay attention this is everywhere, and all the reading and spelling problems are downstream from it.
People from roughly my age, early thirties and younger, are just chronically heedless. It's not about specific academic tasks it's a general lack of mental and physical acuity. You go in a coffeeshop or a library, you ask for something, if there's a young person behind the counter chances are you get a blank stare or you have to repeat yourself while they have a phone in one hand. Young people in my experience can't focus on long conversations, literally just looking at your face and pay attention.
Ted Gioia is quoted in the piece describing it as "checked out zombies" and that's exactly right. There's so many conversations these days where you basically have to snap your fingers in front of someone's face because they're like a distracted cat or something. I taught a soldering class at a makerspace a few years ago and every young person was physically clumsy, as if they had two left hands. Seniors participating did better than 20 year olds. The author is not just a grumpy old teacher, if you pay attention this is everywhere, and all the reading and spelling problems are downstream from it.
25 years ago, I was sitting in the back and alternating between reading paperback books and playing solitaire on my palm pilot. Nobody had smart phones but texting was already a thing. We came out fine.
Crazy thing is at the same time so many students are way overqualified - 13 APs, 1580 SAT isn't enough to get into a T10 university. Is it really a case of just a bimodal population? Or something else?
I've also seen a lit of intly typed code. Where IDs and stuff are just plain numbers. Seen lots of bugs, often security relevant when the wrong int gets passed to the wrong parameter.
He's describing how I acted as a college student in 2006 (notably, pre-phone), and how my mother experienced being a professor in 2008. I really don't like when I see arguments like that.
studying is indeed transactional.
this means that there is an input and a result.
the intensity of effort put by a student is rationnaly a result of a constant (personal to the student), times the product of the chances of getting a result by the intensity of life changing result you get.
nowadays, being a student is an obligation: without those diplomas, you dont get anything. but with those diplomas, you can not get anything.
so you have to split your attention between different sources to split the risk.
nowadays, being a student is an obligation: without those diplomas, you dont get anything. but with those diplomas, you can not get anything.
so you have to split your attention between different sources to split the risk.
The funny thing is that this article makes the author sound like the "lazy" one here. They're completely engulfed in their own experience with no ability to put themselves in a student's shoes.
Students ask for lecture slides and that bothers you? Pare down your slides so the content is rendered useless unless they come to class.
Attendance is down? Mark attendance with a simple, 1-question quiz every lecture that students need to be in class to access (QR code, iClicker, etc.). Make it count towards a whole grade-letter percentage of your grade.
Students leaving to "use phones" during class? Students can take classes back to back. Sometimes with almost no break in between (unless you consider racing across campus from one class to the next a break). It's not easy to switch subjects like that and meaningfully contribute to both spaces.
Students ask for lecture slides and that bothers you? Pare down your slides so the content is rendered useless unless they come to class.
Attendance is down? Mark attendance with a simple, 1-question quiz every lecture that students need to be in class to access (QR code, iClicker, etc.). Make it count towards a whole grade-letter percentage of your grade.
Students leaving to "use phones" during class? Students can take classes back to back. Sometimes with almost no break in between (unless you consider racing across campus from one class to the next a break). It's not easy to switch subjects like that and meaningfully contribute to both spaces.
[deleted]
In fairness to the kids, The Overstory is horribly boring.
Nah, it's a seriously good book, and even quite gripping towards the end. The problem is that it's rather nihilistic. It's a lot like Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry for the Future -- but whereas Ministry had a certain warrior vitality (perhaps too much, too naïve,) I felt like The Overstory made a mockery of human efforts to affect positive change.
> They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom... I’ve even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect.
These are adults. It sounds like you know they're not going to the bathroom, so reminding them of this (and treating them like children) is infantilizing and damages the relationship.
I would also mention, I also have a hard time sitting still for 50 minutes. One of my professors used the Pomodoro method in class -- after 25 minutes of lecture, he would stop, tell people to get up, stretch, walk around, chat, whatever, before starting up again in 5 minutes. It was awesome and showed huge respect for the students. I never missed a class of his.
These are adults. It sounds like you know they're not going to the bathroom, so reminding them of this (and treating them like children) is infantilizing and damages the relationship.
I would also mention, I also have a hard time sitting still for 50 minutes. One of my professors used the Pomodoro method in class -- after 25 minutes of lecture, he would stop, tell people to get up, stretch, walk around, chat, whatever, before starting up again in 5 minutes. It was awesome and showed huge respect for the students. I never missed a class of his.
900 comments and no mention of bloom's taxonomy or any of bloom's work? Yup, no one read the syllabus.
I hate school I'll learn everything on my own write when I want to cheat on whatever you give me don't make me do anything.
^I really like living like this. I couldn't imagine being the "good student" ratting out the guy in front of me for gambling! We have to make our own way, school is like this bubble - even if you excel within it, you're just excelling WITHIN it. It's meaningless to me.
^I really like living like this. I couldn't imagine being the "good student" ratting out the guy in front of me for gambling! We have to make our own way, school is like this bubble - even if you excel within it, you're just excelling WITHIN it. It's meaningless to me.
Alas. Perhaps if you attended to your studies more, you'd learn the power of the comma. Your comment really demonstrates the disappointing reality of your approach. Thank you for making it.
I hate to believe it but I’ve heard this more times than I can discount. So what does this mean for the future?
This was also the average college student yesterday and it will be the average college student tomorrow.
I graduated 10 years ago from a public university in the US (albeit one of the best ones - so everyone was your typical high achieving student) and all of this tracks except for the functional illiteracy part.
Chronic absenteeism was normal. Disappearing students was normal. Pretending to take notes was normal. Indifference was normal. I'm sure all of the above has __always__ been happening.
Chronic absenteeism was normal. Disappearing students was normal. Pretending to take notes was normal. Indifference was normal. I'm sure all of the above has __always__ been happening.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
Why not?
Despite the disclaimer, this part made me think it actually might be an old man shaking a fist at clouds...
> Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
Yes, it's a difficult job. TikTok is captivating. Good luck.
Why not?
Despite the disclaimer, this part made me think it actually might be an old man shaking a fist at clouds...
> Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
Yes, it's a difficult job. TikTok is captivating. Good luck.
I mean it’s a bit rough to say and generalize but as someone in college atm it does feel like a good percentage of the students could fit in (some of) the boxes the author thought of.
Now along with some people skipping college altogether and other students maybe not wanting to speak up in class for whatever reason professors may feel totally alone.
I have to say this does go both ways, of course as student I am inherently biased but there are professors that are not totally present in their lessons, don’t know their material, etc. Now I haven’t been a student for decades do this may not have changed at all or is just a tangential part of my comment.
Also if I had to ‘guess’ the reason students are going backwards, it’s phones, it’s social media, it’s a lack of third places, it’s the quick and fast content on social media. That’s also the reason reading has been on a rather downwards trend.
And all our ‘creature comforts’ / being lazy also ‘rots’ your brain. As in IF you start using AI tools for coding it starts being so integral you can barely do without, same for AI for reading and even like how using a calculator makes you worse at quick head math.
Now along with some people skipping college altogether and other students maybe not wanting to speak up in class for whatever reason professors may feel totally alone.
I have to say this does go both ways, of course as student I am inherently biased but there are professors that are not totally present in their lessons, don’t know their material, etc. Now I haven’t been a student for decades do this may not have changed at all or is just a tangential part of my comment.
Also if I had to ‘guess’ the reason students are going backwards, it’s phones, it’s social media, it’s a lack of third places, it’s the quick and fast content on social media. That’s also the reason reading has been on a rather downwards trend.
And all our ‘creature comforts’ / being lazy also ‘rots’ your brain. As in IF you start using AI tools for coding it starts being so integral you can barely do without, same for AI for reading and even like how using a calculator makes you worse at quick head math.
> I wrote the textbook for a course I regularly teach.
> I believe they didn’t buy the books, but I’m skeptical that cost is the true reason, as opposed to just the excuse they offer.
> All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
How about don't charge for the material you present in your course? That is scumbag behavior to teach a course and require your students to buy books you stand to profit from.
> I believe they didn’t buy the books, but I’m skeptical that cost is the true reason, as opposed to just the excuse they offer.
> All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
How about don't charge for the material you present in your course? That is scumbag behavior to teach a course and require your students to buy books you stand to profit from.
I don't think it's his textbook though, he's just asking people to find specific novels to have a discussion on (and the students are just using SparkNotes).
Of course he can't fail them.
More reason why college degrees are worthless signals.
More reason why college degrees are worthless signals.
Yes, majority of the people are stupid. What a discovery!
Worth pointing out this person is a philosophy professor.
The government needs to mandate cell base stations geofence off service to schools during school hours, with a provision for first responders and school admins to turn it back on during emergencies.
Or have cell jammers in schools.
Or have cell jammers in schools.
This was written by an Ivy League professor. When can we stop pretending Ivy League students are any better than state school students? So much talent at state schools being overlooked
You're kind of making his point - the second and third paragraphs are explicitly about the fact that he is not an Ivy League professor. Be the change you want to see in the world by doing the reading first.
Touche. Thank you
[deleted]
If college was marketed as on the job training instead of some romanticized version of you going out into the world and making a difference, I could see the culture changing. Just listen to the graduation speeches that are 10 plus minutes long, it's very discouraging at times because no one will ever live up to Steve Jobs, Ophrah Winfrey, Chadwick Boseman, Barack Obama etc. We drive this stuff into high school kids, and they come out of college disappointed with a lot of debt. It's an outdated model, that needs to be changed. College can't be prestigious anymore when it's expensive AF.
The truth might be they know its all a sham. The most important thing you could teach is actually how capitalism works in pragmatic facts: You will never live a good life working for a wage. You need to eliminate middle-men, work for yourself somehow, have constant side hustles. And now that dump is in charge: figure out how to do crypto scams, and financial crimes while figuring out who you need to bribe to get away with it.
God help us when those poor students graduate into the real world, unable to perform even the simplest metaphysics or epistemology!
I am definitely interested in how things look for STEM majors on average, and whether they've seen a similar decline. Although the article has a quote from a math professor, and that's certainly not a degree you get into without some level of dedication.
>unable to perform even the simplest metaphysics or epistemology
Or brain surgery, or lawyering, or designing roads and buildings.
And what if they work at a nuclear power plant?
Or brain surgery, or lawyering, or designing roads and buildings.
And what if they work at a nuclear power plant?
That's my point though.
Perhaps $100 per course per semester is better spent elsewhere, and maybe walking out of a lecture on Dostoevsky is the correct thing for a human to do.
Are students walking out of brain surgery classes because of phones?
Perhaps $100 per course per semester is better spent elsewhere, and maybe walking out of a lecture on Dostoevsky is the correct thing for a human to do.
Are students walking out of brain surgery classes because of phones?
God help us indeed
An additional complaint that I've heard, from a writing professor, is that their students are narcissists.
I don't think the professor meant that entirely literally, but I'm sure they had considerable visibility into students' thinking and personality, through the students' writing.
(This was shortly before the "cheat-GPT" plague; maybe now a professor's only insight from a given student's writing assignments is that their student is a cheater.)
I don't think the professor meant that entirely literally, but I'm sure they had considerable visibility into students' thinking and personality, through the students' writing.
(This was shortly before the "cheat-GPT" plague; maybe now a professor's only insight from a given student's writing assignments is that their student is a cheater.)
One approach to, and reason, for college:
As in
Currently with some of the media and more, it's the same for the audiences -- fooled.
Well, then: Have a college education with some math, physical science, biology, psychology, literature, fine arts, meet some people and improve understanding of people see some all time great examples of good thinking, and then will have some good defenses against being fooled.
E.g., there is from page 76 of
Today with some good education, we can look at this claim and right away conclude: Absurd, nonsense, wasting human life.
So, the Mayan audiences didn't have a good, current US college education and were vulnerable to being seriously fooled.
For some of the college courses,
As in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_show
"Medicine shows were touring acts
(traveling by truck, horse, or wagon
teams) that peddled "miracle cure"
patent medicines and other products
between various entertainments."
Currently with some of the media and more, it's the same for the audiences -- fooled.
Well, then: Have a college education with some math, physical science, biology, psychology, literature, fine arts, meet some people and improve understanding of people see some all time great examples of good thinking, and then will have some good defenses against being fooled.
E.g., there is from page 76 of
Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the
Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore,
and Calendars (The Linda Schele
Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian
Studies)', ISBN-13 978-0292752269,
University of Texas Press, 2000.
"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required
for the sun to move, according to
Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179;
Sahaguin 1950 - 1982, 7:8)."
Today with some good education, we can look at this claim and right away conclude: Absurd, nonsense, wasting human life.
So, the Mayan audiences didn't have a good, current US college education and were vulnerable to being seriously fooled.
For some of the college courses,
"Once you have been in a
course like that about
all you can say is that
you have seen it."
Oh well, I know I'm going to be downvoted to hell. But I always hated this kind of shitty questions in exams
> Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?
I don't know nothing about Dostoevsky. Never read any of his books. I don't even know when he was born or dies. I only know the word Dostoevsky. It can be any author or book, not specific to Dostoevsky. Now, coming to my hatred for the exam question: What the fuck am I? A telepath? How am I supposed to know what was happening in Dostoevsky mind when he wrote that paragraph in the book? Whatever is the answer the professor think is right, is that answer approved by Dostoevsky himself? If not, who the fuck the professor think he is to tell me my answer is wrong (yeah I know he can do whatever he wants with his exams - but you get the point) and not in accordance with Dostoevsky intentions? If Dostoevsky didn't write anything about his intentions of that book, what is the point of writing a book? Aren't words, sentences and paragraphs meant to transmit knowledge without so much delusional interpretations? This is all just mental gymnastic spouting one non sense after other without any way to confirm the real intention behind the author mental model.
I really don't understand this type of questions. Is there a book explaining the mental model of the author while he wrote the book under study? If not, any interpretable opinion is valid as any other.
> Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?
I don't know nothing about Dostoevsky. Never read any of his books. I don't even know when he was born or dies. I only know the word Dostoevsky. It can be any author or book, not specific to Dostoevsky. Now, coming to my hatred for the exam question: What the fuck am I? A telepath? How am I supposed to know what was happening in Dostoevsky mind when he wrote that paragraph in the book? Whatever is the answer the professor think is right, is that answer approved by Dostoevsky himself? If not, who the fuck the professor think he is to tell me my answer is wrong (yeah I know he can do whatever he wants with his exams - but you get the point) and not in accordance with Dostoevsky intentions? If Dostoevsky didn't write anything about his intentions of that book, what is the point of writing a book? Aren't words, sentences and paragraphs meant to transmit knowledge without so much delusional interpretations? This is all just mental gymnastic spouting one non sense after other without any way to confirm the real intention behind the author mental model.
I really don't understand this type of questions. Is there a book explaining the mental model of the author while he wrote the book under study? If not, any interpretable opinion is valid as any other.
The question is not asking about Dostoevsky's views, it's asking about the views of a character in one of Dostoevsky's novels. The character's views are written down in the book.
Since answering the question without reading the book remains problematic, and apparently telepathy isn't your strong point, you would probably have to fall back on your reading comprehension skills to make progress, although the author also suggests using AI if that's too time consuming.
Since answering the question without reading the book remains problematic, and apparently telepathy isn't your strong point, you would probably have to fall back on your reading comprehension skills to make progress, although the author also suggests using AI if that's too time consuming.
What a patronizing answer. Since your telepathic power are so strong, why don't you tell me what was going in Dostoevsky mind (mental model? emotions? Was he ever under drugs when he wrote that book?) when he wrote that book and exactly on the topics raised by the question? Oh well I guess you don't have the power to read the past. Maybe you should put my parent post to AI and let it summarize for you, so that it can explain clearly what was my point. Is it too hard for you to copy paste?
[deleted]
I'm sorry, yes that was a deliberately patronising response. I was trying to write a funny reply. I actually suspected your comment might not have been entirely serious as the question you are referring to isn't asking you to do the thing you were complaining about (it's not asking you to speculate about Dostoevsky's views). The question is about the views of the main character in one of his books and since the character is fictional and his thoughts and actions are written down in the book it's possible to know about them without telepathy. I thought you might have been intentionally misunderstanding this in the way the OP was complaining his students did. Sorry for any offence caused.
I loved your first reply, though.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Shake your fist at the clouds, dude."
How can someone utter and in the same breath accuse his students of writing in cliches?
How can someone utter and in the same breath accuse his students of writing in cliches?
[deleted]
While I am usually pretty skeptical about this sort of thing complaining about "kids these days" I am genuinely unsure what is going on in our high schools. My niece recently graduated with a 4.0 GPA. We played Trivial Pursuit with her at a recent holiday party and she could not answer the most basic questions, and most egregious of all did not know who Winston Churchill was. My mother-in-law, her grandmother, even remarked "What are they teaching you in school these days?"
When I was in high school, the kids graduating with 4.0's were much smarter than me, and frankly probably smarter than I am now twenty years later. I just don't think that is the case anymore.
When I was in high school, the kids graduating with 4.0's were much smarter than me, and frankly probably smarter than I am now twenty years later. I just don't think that is the case anymore.
In the US, it was estimated that about half of HS grads had an A- (3.7) average or better. That was in 2016 and was ~10% higher than in 1998, so one should assume that it would be higher now.
Oh god, I remember when Gorbachev died, some late 20's person I was talking to at a party remarked something along the lines of "Who is that nobody?"
This was a person who considered themselves a socialist.
This was a person who considered themselves a socialist.
yeah, just another old man complaining about the kids today, the same way everyone has since Gilgamesh. Shake your fist at the clouds, dude
I won't go into whether this is "yet another old person complaining about young people", I do not know whether this is a valid complaint or not. Instead, I just want to comment on some of what is mentioned here.
For context, I want to reveal a little bit of private information. I grew up in a family that was somewhere between lower class and middle class. My parents found out (or perhaps decided?) that I was quite intelligent as a child. And so they really wanted me to go to university, become part of the "educated elite", and make them proud. Whenever I would do anything that was "smart", I could feel their love and appreciation. I internalized this as "smart = loved". So when I started to struggle in school, because it turned out that you need more than just intelligence but also effort, I stopped trying. In hindsight, I realized that I would rather be seen as a lazy genius than as hardworking average student. Could I have been a hardworking genius? No, I'm pretty intelligent compared to most people, but I'm not a Mensa member or anything (despite the lack of trying -- how does geography knowledge end up on an intelligence test, anyway?). I did end up finishing high school at the highest level, and then got a university bachelors, but the whole process took about 1.5x as many years as it's supposed to, because I treated actual exams as practice exams, and I'd sometimes pass them on the "retry" (usually I did not, but I'd pass them the next year). Suffice to say, I am filled with self-shame and anguish whenever anyone even brings up the topic of education.
so, with that out of the way so you can better choose how much to value my opinions, I want to discuss a few points:
> Attendance is a HUGE problem
Is it really a problem, though? God I wish that my classes were recorded, like so many other studies' classes were. I had a pretty bad sleeping disorder, and having to go to class each day at 9 am, expected to be at peak intellectual level, was really hard for me. It's much better now that I'm working, but still I'm at my best around 11 AM. How I envied students who could watch classes at 6 pm, or whenever they felt like it, and even having the option to re-watch classes!
> I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out.
Just let them watch their phones in class, then. If you really want them to act as adults, let them choose their own priorities.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate.
Why the hell not? What is the point of this? Is this a hierarchy/power thing? Why would notes from a classmate be better than, you know, teachings from their teacher?
> I hate laptops in class, but if I try to ban them the students will just run to Accommodative Services and get them to tell me that the student must use a laptop or they will explode into tiny pieces.
Okay so two things: making notes on a laptop is fine, it's no worse than writing on a notebook. Yes, I know that there are some supposed benefits to the hand-eye coordination from writing, but I can't imagine that that's what you care about. No you're probably annoyed by the fact that they are choosing to do different things on their laptop while in your class. But as I said above, just let them. It's their own responsibility to pay attention, and it's neither your obligation nor your right to treat them as children. Instead, consider why these students might be "checking out". Why are they in this class if they just want to gamble and watch memes? Could it be that they are being pressured into being here and that they are desperately trying to "cheat" the system into expressing themselves? Could it be that this hierarchical system where they are supposedly "adults" they still find themselves being stuck in this boring structure where education staff have become their new parents is not the best way for them to find out what they want to do with their lives? I was a bored, distracted student like this. If I could go to university again (I could, but it's exprensive -- not just because costs are high, but much more so because it means missing years of income) I would probably be an excellent student now -- but it would be because I choose to be a student. I never chose to be a student, except that I "chose" to go along with expectactions, and I know that many fellow students felt the same. These people are adults, yes, but they're also still on the same "school child" mindset that they have been on since they were 4 years old. They can't wait to finally be done and actually, you know, live. Okay that was a long rant.
> No, you can’t make up the midterm because you were hungover and slept through your alarm, but you can if you had Covid. Then they just don’t show up. A missed quiz from a month ago might as well have happened in the Stone Age; students can’t be bothered to make it up or even talk to me about it because they just don’t care.
Okay this opinion is probably way out there, but: why not? If a test is supposed to just be a measure to determine if a student has absorbed the provided information, then why not allow them to take the test because they missed the first one from being hungover? Why have them wait a FULL YEAR to take the class again, if it's entirely possible that they have already absorbed all the information? The article complains about bored students who have "checked out". Gee, with this kind of mindset, I wonder why?
> One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us.
BUT THEY ARE, though! Just younger versions. From their perspective, they are told pretty much "yeah you're adults now, but before you can begin your life, you have to finish this 3-5 year degree, which will be pretty much exactly as the last 15 years of your life have been but now classes are optional and you'll rake up huge debts in the process that you might be able to pay back over the next 15 years". These are not 40 year olds who had a succesful degree and are now, of their own volition, deciding to study something that truely interests them. These are young adults who are not just studying something that they pray will be interesting to them (because how will they know before starting?) and in the meantime are also dealing with finally having some private freedom -- like renting their own apartment, having relationships, finally being able to drink all night and not have to worry about waking up mom, and whatever else comes with that. I know several people like that who ended up becoming professors at a university, so yes they are very much like you. Trying to make them "the others" doesn't do either of you any good.
> Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
why isn't the teacher just providing these books for free in PDF form? Teachers who require students to read the books that they are selling has always felt very bad to me: the teachers have this weird conflict of interest because they can set any price for their books and the students will have to buy it because otherwise they can't complete their degree. I mean, depending on the country (I'm not american), I know some students are already paying over 60k per year - why does that not include the teacher's required textbook? why is it that someone who has no money, who is given a scholarship to attend university, might still fail due to having no money?
Alright, that concludes my rant. Clearly I've been very triggered by this post. As a final note: I want to say that I wish that I had had competent LLMs when I was studying. Textbooks are often written by extremely verbose and long-winded people, which perhaps is not true for the author, but I too really struggled with reading those. And not just because they were long and boring, but also because simple explanations are just much more effective ways to explain complex themes. LLMs are AMAZING at breaking down complicated topics into smaller ones that you can understand, and more importantly, it can tell you in a way that you understand, it "speaks your language" if you will. It's like having a private tutor. Students should be thriving right now because they all got private tutors! Amazing! But instead, the field of education is failing to capitalize on this and is only capable to seeing how it's a problem for the way things have been done in the past. Adapt! Learn! Improve! Don't be complacent, consider that AI might be a tool that can help you teach: encourage students to use it! Find a new way to teach that capitalizes on this amazing new tool in humanity's collective toolbelt.
Alright now my rant really is concluded, haha.
For context, I want to reveal a little bit of private information. I grew up in a family that was somewhere between lower class and middle class. My parents found out (or perhaps decided?) that I was quite intelligent as a child. And so they really wanted me to go to university, become part of the "educated elite", and make them proud. Whenever I would do anything that was "smart", I could feel their love and appreciation. I internalized this as "smart = loved". So when I started to struggle in school, because it turned out that you need more than just intelligence but also effort, I stopped trying. In hindsight, I realized that I would rather be seen as a lazy genius than as hardworking average student. Could I have been a hardworking genius? No, I'm pretty intelligent compared to most people, but I'm not a Mensa member or anything (despite the lack of trying -- how does geography knowledge end up on an intelligence test, anyway?). I did end up finishing high school at the highest level, and then got a university bachelors, but the whole process took about 1.5x as many years as it's supposed to, because I treated actual exams as practice exams, and I'd sometimes pass them on the "retry" (usually I did not, but I'd pass them the next year). Suffice to say, I am filled with self-shame and anguish whenever anyone even brings up the topic of education.
so, with that out of the way so you can better choose how much to value my opinions, I want to discuss a few points:
> Attendance is a HUGE problem
Is it really a problem, though? God I wish that my classes were recorded, like so many other studies' classes were. I had a pretty bad sleeping disorder, and having to go to class each day at 9 am, expected to be at peak intellectual level, was really hard for me. It's much better now that I'm working, but still I'm at my best around 11 AM. How I envied students who could watch classes at 6 pm, or whenever they felt like it, and even having the option to re-watch classes!
> I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out.
Just let them watch their phones in class, then. If you really want them to act as adults, let them choose their own priorities.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate.
Why the hell not? What is the point of this? Is this a hierarchy/power thing? Why would notes from a classmate be better than, you know, teachings from their teacher?
> I hate laptops in class, but if I try to ban them the students will just run to Accommodative Services and get them to tell me that the student must use a laptop or they will explode into tiny pieces.
Okay so two things: making notes on a laptop is fine, it's no worse than writing on a notebook. Yes, I know that there are some supposed benefits to the hand-eye coordination from writing, but I can't imagine that that's what you care about. No you're probably annoyed by the fact that they are choosing to do different things on their laptop while in your class. But as I said above, just let them. It's their own responsibility to pay attention, and it's neither your obligation nor your right to treat them as children. Instead, consider why these students might be "checking out". Why are they in this class if they just want to gamble and watch memes? Could it be that they are being pressured into being here and that they are desperately trying to "cheat" the system into expressing themselves? Could it be that this hierarchical system where they are supposedly "adults" they still find themselves being stuck in this boring structure where education staff have become their new parents is not the best way for them to find out what they want to do with their lives? I was a bored, distracted student like this. If I could go to university again (I could, but it's exprensive -- not just because costs are high, but much more so because it means missing years of income) I would probably be an excellent student now -- but it would be because I choose to be a student. I never chose to be a student, except that I "chose" to go along with expectactions, and I know that many fellow students felt the same. These people are adults, yes, but they're also still on the same "school child" mindset that they have been on since they were 4 years old. They can't wait to finally be done and actually, you know, live. Okay that was a long rant.
> No, you can’t make up the midterm because you were hungover and slept through your alarm, but you can if you had Covid. Then they just don’t show up. A missed quiz from a month ago might as well have happened in the Stone Age; students can’t be bothered to make it up or even talk to me about it because they just don’t care.
Okay this opinion is probably way out there, but: why not? If a test is supposed to just be a measure to determine if a student has absorbed the provided information, then why not allow them to take the test because they missed the first one from being hungover? Why have them wait a FULL YEAR to take the class again, if it's entirely possible that they have already absorbed all the information? The article complains about bored students who have "checked out". Gee, with this kind of mindset, I wonder why?
> One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us.
BUT THEY ARE, though! Just younger versions. From their perspective, they are told pretty much "yeah you're adults now, but before you can begin your life, you have to finish this 3-5 year degree, which will be pretty much exactly as the last 15 years of your life have been but now classes are optional and you'll rake up huge debts in the process that you might be able to pay back over the next 15 years". These are not 40 year olds who had a succesful degree and are now, of their own volition, deciding to study something that truely interests them. These are young adults who are not just studying something that they pray will be interesting to them (because how will they know before starting?) and in the meantime are also dealing with finally having some private freedom -- like renting their own apartment, having relationships, finally being able to drink all night and not have to worry about waking up mom, and whatever else comes with that. I know several people like that who ended up becoming professors at a university, so yes they are very much like you. Trying to make them "the others" doesn't do either of you any good.
> Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them.
why isn't the teacher just providing these books for free in PDF form? Teachers who require students to read the books that they are selling has always felt very bad to me: the teachers have this weird conflict of interest because they can set any price for their books and the students will have to buy it because otherwise they can't complete their degree. I mean, depending on the country (I'm not american), I know some students are already paying over 60k per year - why does that not include the teacher's required textbook? why is it that someone who has no money, who is given a scholarship to attend university, might still fail due to having no money?
Alright, that concludes my rant. Clearly I've been very triggered by this post. As a final note: I want to say that I wish that I had had competent LLMs when I was studying. Textbooks are often written by extremely verbose and long-winded people, which perhaps is not true for the author, but I too really struggled with reading those. And not just because they were long and boring, but also because simple explanations are just much more effective ways to explain complex themes. LLMs are AMAZING at breaking down complicated topics into smaller ones that you can understand, and more importantly, it can tell you in a way that you understand, it "speaks your language" if you will. It's like having a private tutor. Students should be thriving right now because they all got private tutors! Amazing! But instead, the field of education is failing to capitalize on this and is only capable to seeing how it's a problem for the way things have been done in the past. Adapt! Learn! Improve! Don't be complacent, consider that AI might be a tool that can help you teach: encourage students to use it! Find a new way to teach that capitalizes on this amazing new tool in humanity's collective toolbelt.
Alright now my rant really is concluded, haha.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes
Unimaginable to not have the lecture slides ahead of time so that I don't have to spend the whole time copying.
> Last semester I had a good student tell me, “hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.”
So what? Are you paying them or the other way around? Maybe your lectures aren't that interesting.
> The students can’t get off their phones for an hour to do a voluntary activity they chose for fun. Sometimes I’m amazed they ever leave their goon caves at all.
> One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us
You sound condescending and not very interesting. How much original thinking do you bring?
Taking a look at your blog, the vibes are off and I find most of the writing uninspired, borderline cringey. Also, is it important that you're a "tenured philosophy professor with an Ivy League PhD" or should your ideas stand on their own?
https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-old-m...
"While I am a lesser son of great sires, I am descended from kings." meh..
Do you think that Roderick Chisholm would have the same issues with student engagement, and would he react in the same way you are?
It takes a special type of person to bring the ideas to life and not everyone is meant to be a lecturer/teacher. I would love to watch a few of your lectures so I can put myself in your students' shoes.
I spent a huge amount of college "in my goon cave" and absent from lectures. There are many reasons why students do this, and it's not your job to judge them. I didn't figure out what I was really interested in for basically the entirety of college. Once I figured it out, graduate school was the complete opposite experience.
imho the point of college is not to take in information, but to i) figure out what you're interested in and ii) make life-long friendship and connections. Information is widely available online for once you know what you're interested in.
Your attitude is like you're the keeper of secret knowledge and the kids need to attend your lectures and read your book in order to access it. Maybe the kids already figured out that you're not providing any more knowledge than they have access to outside of class, and if class is not engaging then bother attending?
A major problem in college is that you can't know ahead of time if the class/professor is going to be interesting, and the engaging advanced classes are locked behind required intro classes. Kind of like a RPG game where you can't know what the advanced skills are without tech-ing into the basic skills, except in real life you can't re-spec and make a new character as easily.
While you're probably right about the overall trend of intellectual curiosity, you might be part of the problem. We're not getting rid of phones and laptops.
Instead of trying to fight tech, one solution would be to allow any student to drop-in on any class in progress (in real-time and or accessing past class recordings) which would let them decide if they want to invest in the taking the boring beginner required classes.
Unimaginable to not have the lecture slides ahead of time so that I don't have to spend the whole time copying.
> Last semester I had a good student tell me, “hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.”
So what? Are you paying them or the other way around? Maybe your lectures aren't that interesting.
> The students can’t get off their phones for an hour to do a voluntary activity they chose for fun. Sometimes I’m amazed they ever leave their goon caves at all.
> One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us
You sound condescending and not very interesting. How much original thinking do you bring?
Taking a look at your blog, the vibes are off and I find most of the writing uninspired, borderline cringey. Also, is it important that you're a "tenured philosophy professor with an Ivy League PhD" or should your ideas stand on their own?
https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-old-m...
"While I am a lesser son of great sires, I am descended from kings." meh..
Do you think that Roderick Chisholm would have the same issues with student engagement, and would he react in the same way you are?
It takes a special type of person to bring the ideas to life and not everyone is meant to be a lecturer/teacher. I would love to watch a few of your lectures so I can put myself in your students' shoes.
I spent a huge amount of college "in my goon cave" and absent from lectures. There are many reasons why students do this, and it's not your job to judge them. I didn't figure out what I was really interested in for basically the entirety of college. Once I figured it out, graduate school was the complete opposite experience.
imho the point of college is not to take in information, but to i) figure out what you're interested in and ii) make life-long friendship and connections. Information is widely available online for once you know what you're interested in.
Your attitude is like you're the keeper of secret knowledge and the kids need to attend your lectures and read your book in order to access it. Maybe the kids already figured out that you're not providing any more knowledge than they have access to outside of class, and if class is not engaging then bother attending?
A major problem in college is that you can't know ahead of time if the class/professor is going to be interesting, and the engaging advanced classes are locked behind required intro classes. Kind of like a RPG game where you can't know what the advanced skills are without tech-ing into the basic skills, except in real life you can't re-spec and make a new character as easily.
While you're probably right about the overall trend of intellectual curiosity, you might be part of the problem. We're not getting rid of phones and laptops.
Instead of trying to fight tech, one solution would be to allow any student to drop-in on any class in progress (in real-time and or accessing past class recordings) which would let them decide if they want to invest in the taking the boring beginner required classes.
We like to blame the students, but there is probably some adjustments that could be made to the system. I think people like to start with "college is a place where you become well-rounded", but nobody ever tells you the value of being well-rounded. Like, do you get money for that? Are there jobs where you have to be well-rounded? I am pretty students just want to have a future where they have a comfortable job and make "enough" money. So, is that what colleges actually provide? The answer seems like "no". We have always done it that way, so we're going to keep doing it that way, but ... why? If it's not working, you've gotta change something. What kinds of jobs do people want to have in the future, and what skills prepare them to be successful? (I'm guessing people that go into the general "college" track don't know yet, so why isn't the first year about trying to figure that out? There are probably hundreds of fulfilling and valuable careers that I have never even heard of!)
We act like there is a one size fits all solution to education, but there really isn't. Some of us had it very easy. When I was growing up, I liked science, so I read every kids science book I could get out of the library. That's how I learned reading comprehension; by reading things that would be interesting to comprehend. And having an interest lets it cascade; people pick up on your interest and customize the rest of your academic career for that specific interest. I went to a special math and science high school. We did research. We built things and learned the math behind engineering. I then went to college for engineering. Pretty easy to figure out "what actually matters" in that context. The question is... what do we do for everyone else? Sometimes people don't show a clear interest in something that early, and it's pretty important to be interested.
Also gotta say, if I was in the professor's class, I probably wouldn't have done the reading and would have turned in similarly shitty papers. (OK, OK, not as bad as the example provided, but probably just as careless and ... wrong.) I'm not illiterate, but sometimes a subject simply doesn't interest me, and I'm not going to spend times on things that aren't interesting or valuable. I wouldn't expect this professor to be particularly interested in reading or comprehending anything I wrote, for example. Write me a 500 word essay on why Nix is just a Jsonnet file with extra steps. He'd probably get an F and would tell me it doesn't matter, because you know what, it doesn't really! Different people like different things, and you can still be a valuable member of society while having near-zero interest in somebody else's field. (Having said that, I do read fiction occasionally. But ya know, if the book is boring, I just stop reading it and nobody gets in trouble.)
I do think that phones and short videos and all that is probably not great for society, but people are looking at something to keep their mind occupied, and that's the easiest thing. What are we doing to give people better things to be occupied by? Nothing? A 12 week course on existentialism? Hmm, maybe that's the problem.
We act like there is a one size fits all solution to education, but there really isn't. Some of us had it very easy. When I was growing up, I liked science, so I read every kids science book I could get out of the library. That's how I learned reading comprehension; by reading things that would be interesting to comprehend. And having an interest lets it cascade; people pick up on your interest and customize the rest of your academic career for that specific interest. I went to a special math and science high school. We did research. We built things and learned the math behind engineering. I then went to college for engineering. Pretty easy to figure out "what actually matters" in that context. The question is... what do we do for everyone else? Sometimes people don't show a clear interest in something that early, and it's pretty important to be interested.
Also gotta say, if I was in the professor's class, I probably wouldn't have done the reading and would have turned in similarly shitty papers. (OK, OK, not as bad as the example provided, but probably just as careless and ... wrong.) I'm not illiterate, but sometimes a subject simply doesn't interest me, and I'm not going to spend times on things that aren't interesting or valuable. I wouldn't expect this professor to be particularly interested in reading or comprehending anything I wrote, for example. Write me a 500 word essay on why Nix is just a Jsonnet file with extra steps. He'd probably get an F and would tell me it doesn't matter, because you know what, it doesn't really! Different people like different things, and you can still be a valuable member of society while having near-zero interest in somebody else's field. (Having said that, I do read fiction occasionally. But ya know, if the book is boring, I just stop reading it and nobody gets in trouble.)
I do think that phones and short videos and all that is probably not great for society, but people are looking at something to keep their mind occupied, and that's the easiest thing. What are we doing to give people better things to be occupied by? Nothing? A 12 week course on existentialism? Hmm, maybe that's the problem.
As a student in the UK, admittedly at a very middle of the road non RG, I partially agree with this.
Absolutely, the lack of engagement by my peers I see is insane. We have a Discord group for our cohort and the lack of basic problem-solving ability and engagement is disheartening. I especially remember during my Software Engineering class (in year 2, so they have had three programming classes in year one + the whole summer to explore), only three of my group out of eight actally engaged to a serious extent.
I had to write a parser for a game file format in said class - just ASCII text. Some of the non-engaging group members couldn't be bothered, or maybe they were scared, to read the nice error message I gave for my parser. I designed it to be nice and readable, tells you what the issue is (e.g., "extraneous comma" or "unknown tile type {}") and the line and column, but I effectively had to be support for these people, who just could not read the error message.
There's also a massive fear of even basic mathematical analysis (e.g., in an algorithms class we were analysing traditional graph search algorithms, not that we were asked to prove anything ourselves, but were shown lemmas and relations and I recall my cohort reeling at it).
Part of this is definitely AI, most people cannot program without GPT, even to a basic extent.
I'm not particularly intelligent, I just work and engage with my studies. I can't imagine just going to university and coasting (though the UK loan system incentivises that, but that's another story) I think we have too many people going to university (I blame Blair) because it's the societal expectation, and a loan is given instantaneously to anyone who applies.
This may be part of just going to a mediocre university though. I plan to do a postgraduate, ideally at a much better university, hopefully my peers there will be significantly more engaged.
Attendance is a big thing, and I fall into this myself. My university has a policy of recording all lectures, so why go? I know it's 'wrong', but I feel I learn more efficiently with a recording, and due to the lack of engagement I mentioned earlier, it's not like there's a seminar style where we all come having read a research paper or something and discuss it, or go through exam questions (honestly, I would love that and actually attend - but I doubt that many students would do the reading). It is just a lecture which I can just watch at home. This does hurt the community spirit of the university, but honestly I'm not that bothered.
However, I completely disagree with the textbooks (though let's be real, if students wanted to read them - many could just pirate them, but they don't) section, as well as the slides. I also agree that note-taking is important, but to completely lose the original content seems unnecessary (I appreciate the argument that in the workplace meetings are only taken down as minutes vs a recording though).
Absolutely, the lack of engagement by my peers I see is insane. We have a Discord group for our cohort and the lack of basic problem-solving ability and engagement is disheartening. I especially remember during my Software Engineering class (in year 2, so they have had three programming classes in year one + the whole summer to explore), only three of my group out of eight actally engaged to a serious extent.
I had to write a parser for a game file format in said class - just ASCII text. Some of the non-engaging group members couldn't be bothered, or maybe they were scared, to read the nice error message I gave for my parser. I designed it to be nice and readable, tells you what the issue is (e.g., "extraneous comma" or "unknown tile type {}") and the line and column, but I effectively had to be support for these people, who just could not read the error message.
There's also a massive fear of even basic mathematical analysis (e.g., in an algorithms class we were analysing traditional graph search algorithms, not that we were asked to prove anything ourselves, but were shown lemmas and relations and I recall my cohort reeling at it).
Part of this is definitely AI, most people cannot program without GPT, even to a basic extent.
I'm not particularly intelligent, I just work and engage with my studies. I can't imagine just going to university and coasting (though the UK loan system incentivises that, but that's another story) I think we have too many people going to university (I blame Blair) because it's the societal expectation, and a loan is given instantaneously to anyone who applies.
This may be part of just going to a mediocre university though. I plan to do a postgraduate, ideally at a much better university, hopefully my peers there will be significantly more engaged.
Attendance is a big thing, and I fall into this myself. My university has a policy of recording all lectures, so why go? I know it's 'wrong', but I feel I learn more efficiently with a recording, and due to the lack of engagement I mentioned earlier, it's not like there's a seminar style where we all come having read a research paper or something and discuss it, or go through exam questions (honestly, I would love that and actually attend - but I doubt that many students would do the reading). It is just a lecture which I can just watch at home. This does hurt the community spirit of the university, but honestly I'm not that bothered.
However, I completely disagree with the textbooks (though let's be real, if students wanted to read them - many could just pirate them, but they don't) section, as well as the slides. I also agree that note-taking is important, but to completely lose the original content seems unnecessary (I appreciate the argument that in the workplace meetings are only taken down as minutes vs a recording though).
All this makes sense.
Even attending college fifteen years ago, I didn't attend class. What was the point when it was clear the average undergrad class was just a group reading of a textbook? I am paying for the degree. The education became a distraction before I was born.
At least this bodes well for my grad school life.
Even attending college fifteen years ago, I didn't attend class. What was the point when it was clear the average undergrad class was just a group reading of a textbook? I am paying for the degree. The education became a distraction before I was born.
At least this bodes well for my grad school life.
r1chardnl(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
zjp(7)
Lines that stood out to me and reactions to them (oh god, I'm doing a react video, I hate those):
> They’re like me clicking through a mandatory online HR training
- I mean, this whole essay then gets reflected the exact same upon the JDs the school has hired, right? They're thinking the exact same thing about you, from the legal perspective
> Why buy what you aren’t going to read anyway? Just google it.
-Is this person telling the students to pirate? I mean, good!, but you should come out and just say that, I think.
> Their writing skills are at the 8th-grade level
-This is the average for a US adult (same with grade reading level). All you're saying here is that the university is selecting for average people.
> I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop
- ... then stop assigning papers? What am I missing here? Look, Plato bemoans that people use writing to not memorize everything anymore. I'm sorry that the essay that you loved as a tool for the mind is essentially dead (and I am too), but we must be brave enough to face that fact and move on.
> W. V. Quine’s Methods of Logic ... There is no possible way our students, unless they were math or computer science majors, would survive that class.
-Funny! I took this exact same book for a class ~20 years ago (...oh god...). I was a STEM major then and the book is essentially just boolean algebra. I whizzed through it, mostly hungover, and all the Philosophy majors barely scraped by. Nothing's changed!
>Chronic absenteeism.
-Okay, yeah, this is a new thing to me, possibly. I skipped out on an entire GE class once and managed to get a high grade all the same. It was a frosh level class I was just taking for the GE credits though and I was in upperdivision so I never went as I already knew the material. Maybe this is something that is happening with them? That's the most caritable I can get though. I think the author has a real point here.
> look to your right. Now look to your left. One of you will be gone by the end of the semester. Don’t let it be you
-I had the exact same speech given to me ~20 years ago, and it was true. Granted this was a physics class, no philosophy. But yeah, especially at the freshman level, the kids fail out of school or change majors a lot. That's the beans.
> I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out.
-Sounds reasonable to me? Also it sounds like this professor likes being the professor more than they like teaching people. At that age, I'd walk out all the time too. Like, these people are adults, yeah, respects must go both ways. But calling people out on it is, to me, kinda a jerk move.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides
-What the everliving shit?! This person is an asshole? Right? What the fuck was the point of doing this digitally if you can't just endlessly copy and things for free? My company thrives on .ppts and those get sent around like so much spam email. Is this professor living in the stone age? what the hell am I missing here?
> Last week I had an email from a student who essentially asked me to recap an entire week’s worth of lecture material for him prior to yesterday’s midterm
-Ok yeah, no, that's totally fair. Fuck that student, they're an asshat.
> Gambling, looking at the socials, whatever, they are not listening to me or participating in discussion. They are staring at a screen.
-Okay, yeah, this is really why I wanted to 'react' at this. The gambling thing, the addictions. Michael Lewis (Moneyball), has a recent set of articles out on the sports gambling in the US. TLDR: This is as bad as the opioid epidemic. If Mike Lewis is saying that it's as bad as pill popping, look, you should sit up and take action fast. It's almost entirely young men, it's nearly all of them, and about half of them will develop to 'problematic gambling' and ~1/5th to full blown 'gambling addiction'.
What that means for our dear Professor here is that almost all your 'male students' (because of that metric alone) should be seen as you would look at medium-heavy opioid users, that are popping pills in your class right now in front of you. How would you treat someone that is doing drugs in your class as you teach? Are you going to treat them a little differently, yeah? Like, nearly wanting to throw them out of the classroom right there? Because that is more akin to what is happening than a simple Tiktok addiction.
Look, this country has all of a sudden dug a lot of potholes in the road of life for it's youth. Legal weed, gambling, vapes, porn, AI, tinder, etc. It all adds up to a young person trying to navigate it all. Unfortunately, yeah, that's going to affect the classroom too and the person teaching it.
> A missed quiz from a month ago might as well have happened in the Stone Age; students can’t be bothered to make it up or even talk to me about it because they just don’t care.
-Yeah, that's nothing new I'd think. I imagine this professor is mostly bemoaning that they love their subject and school and many students just, well, don't. Oh, and they're addicted to their phones.
> It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones.
-Yes. Yes! YES! You're not going to be competing with all the PhDs out of your psych department that are getting paid 10-50x your salary now to make sure the undergrads are gambling away the student loan chacks and are endlessly looking at makeup ads and porn and the hell that is tinder. Yes! They are addicted. Treat them as addicts.
> What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all?
-YES! They must learn the lesson now, or they will never get a job, right? This is the kind thing to do to them, not the nice thing, but the kind thing.
> That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down. Plus, if we flunk out half the student body and drive the university into bankruptcy, all we’re doing is depriving the good students of an education.
-Okay, yeah, university education has become captured by the very same forces that have addicted your students. No, you're not going to deprive them of anything, it seems, they are already there per this essay. Yes, you're all out of a job, and so now it affects you and now you care? I'm not seeing why I should have a lot of sympathy here. You're not doing the job, the department isn't caring about it's non-TT personnel, let alone adjuncts, let alone student. It seems to me that ya'll need to give a shit about something other than yourself and your interests? I know this is a rant, so logical consistency isn't supposed to really be a part of this. But I'd love a follow up essay that goes into what they think could feasably happen to fix all this.
> It’s not our fault. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve been given.
-Well, I'm sorry to say (as a random internet commentor with no skin in the game), bu it sounds like you all need to get together and demand to be given more or just quit.
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad.
-Yeah man, I think that's all of us. Regroup after this semester and try to get the department together over dinners this summer and think up a better way forward. Do not do this alone, get allies together and make it better. The kids are worth it.
> Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
-Yeah. Pause then. It sounds like this professor is burnt out and needs a break. The ax needs a sharpening.
> They’re like me clicking through a mandatory online HR training
- I mean, this whole essay then gets reflected the exact same upon the JDs the school has hired, right? They're thinking the exact same thing about you, from the legal perspective
> Why buy what you aren’t going to read anyway? Just google it.
-Is this person telling the students to pirate? I mean, good!, but you should come out and just say that, I think.
> Their writing skills are at the 8th-grade level
-This is the average for a US adult (same with grade reading level). All you're saying here is that the university is selecting for average people.
> I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop
- ... then stop assigning papers? What am I missing here? Look, Plato bemoans that people use writing to not memorize everything anymore. I'm sorry that the essay that you loved as a tool for the mind is essentially dead (and I am too), but we must be brave enough to face that fact and move on.
> W. V. Quine’s Methods of Logic ... There is no possible way our students, unless they were math or computer science majors, would survive that class.
-Funny! I took this exact same book for a class ~20 years ago (...oh god...). I was a STEM major then and the book is essentially just boolean algebra. I whizzed through it, mostly hungover, and all the Philosophy majors barely scraped by. Nothing's changed!
>Chronic absenteeism.
-Okay, yeah, this is a new thing to me, possibly. I skipped out on an entire GE class once and managed to get a high grade all the same. It was a frosh level class I was just taking for the GE credits though and I was in upperdivision so I never went as I already knew the material. Maybe this is something that is happening with them? That's the most caritable I can get though. I think the author has a real point here.
> look to your right. Now look to your left. One of you will be gone by the end of the semester. Don’t let it be you
-I had the exact same speech given to me ~20 years ago, and it was true. Granted this was a physics class, no philosophy. But yeah, especially at the freshman level, the kids fail out of school or change majors a lot. That's the beans.
> I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out.
-Sounds reasonable to me? Also it sounds like this professor likes being the professor more than they like teaching people. At that age, I'd walk out all the time too. Like, these people are adults, yeah, respects must go both ways. But calling people out on it is, to me, kinda a jerk move.
> I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides
-What the everliving shit?! This person is an asshole? Right? What the fuck was the point of doing this digitally if you can't just endlessly copy and things for free? My company thrives on .ppts and those get sent around like so much spam email. Is this professor living in the stone age? what the hell am I missing here?
> Last week I had an email from a student who essentially asked me to recap an entire week’s worth of lecture material for him prior to yesterday’s midterm
-Ok yeah, no, that's totally fair. Fuck that student, they're an asshat.
> Gambling, looking at the socials, whatever, they are not listening to me or participating in discussion. They are staring at a screen.
-Okay, yeah, this is really why I wanted to 'react' at this. The gambling thing, the addictions. Michael Lewis (Moneyball), has a recent set of articles out on the sports gambling in the US. TLDR: This is as bad as the opioid epidemic. If Mike Lewis is saying that it's as bad as pill popping, look, you should sit up and take action fast. It's almost entirely young men, it's nearly all of them, and about half of them will develop to 'problematic gambling' and ~1/5th to full blown 'gambling addiction'.
What that means for our dear Professor here is that almost all your 'male students' (because of that metric alone) should be seen as you would look at medium-heavy opioid users, that are popping pills in your class right now in front of you. How would you treat someone that is doing drugs in your class as you teach? Are you going to treat them a little differently, yeah? Like, nearly wanting to throw them out of the classroom right there? Because that is more akin to what is happening than a simple Tiktok addiction.
Look, this country has all of a sudden dug a lot of potholes in the road of life for it's youth. Legal weed, gambling, vapes, porn, AI, tinder, etc. It all adds up to a young person trying to navigate it all. Unfortunately, yeah, that's going to affect the classroom too and the person teaching it.
> A missed quiz from a month ago might as well have happened in the Stone Age; students can’t be bothered to make it up or even talk to me about it because they just don’t care.
-Yeah, that's nothing new I'd think. I imagine this professor is mostly bemoaning that they love their subject and school and many students just, well, don't. Oh, and they're addicted to their phones.
> It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones.
-Yes. Yes! YES! You're not going to be competing with all the PhDs out of your psych department that are getting paid 10-50x your salary now to make sure the undergrads are gambling away the student loan chacks and are endlessly looking at makeup ads and porn and the hell that is tinder. Yes! They are addicted. Treat them as addicts.
> What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all?
-YES! They must learn the lesson now, or they will never get a job, right? This is the kind thing to do to them, not the nice thing, but the kind thing.
> That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down. Plus, if we flunk out half the student body and drive the university into bankruptcy, all we’re doing is depriving the good students of an education.
-Okay, yeah, university education has become captured by the very same forces that have addicted your students. No, you're not going to deprive them of anything, it seems, they are already there per this essay. Yes, you're all out of a job, and so now it affects you and now you care? I'm not seeing why I should have a lot of sympathy here. You're not doing the job, the department isn't caring about it's non-TT personnel, let alone adjuncts, let alone student. It seems to me that ya'll need to give a shit about something other than yourself and your interests? I know this is a rant, so logical consistency isn't supposed to really be a part of this. But I'd love a follow up essay that goes into what they think could feasably happen to fix all this.
> It’s not our fault. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve been given.
-Well, I'm sorry to say (as a random internet commentor with no skin in the game), bu it sounds like you all need to get together and demand to be given more or just quit.
> All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad.
-Yeah man, I think that's all of us. Regroup after this semester and try to get the department together over dinners this summer and think up a better way forward. Do not do this alone, get allies together and make it better. The kids are worth it.
> Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.
-Yeah. Pause then. It sounds like this professor is burnt out and needs a break. The ax needs a sharpening.
I graduated from an Ivy League college with a 3.5 and did everything he mentioned in this article, minus the cheating. Maybe the problem is him? Just sayin’.
Edit: I should mention I graduated twenty years ago.
Edit: I should mention I graduated twenty years ago.
The (unintentional?) irony of this comment is pretty humorous
"novels by people like Barbara Kingsolver, Colson Whitehead, and Richard Powers."
Can you blame them? Looked them up and it's the sootiest coal, unimaginable slop. Who would want to read that?
>recent Pulitzer Prize winners, an objective standard of “serious adult novel.”
You might want to rethink your concept of objectivity bud.
>As a result they have had to make their tests easier with fewer hard problems.
Well there's your problem. If it's impossible to fail it's irrational to try.
I love teachers melting down over reaping what they've sown.
Can you blame them? Looked them up and it's the sootiest coal, unimaginable slop. Who would want to read that?
>recent Pulitzer Prize winners, an objective standard of “serious adult novel.”
You might want to rethink your concept of objectivity bud.
>As a result they have had to make their tests easier with fewer hard problems.
Well there's your problem. If it's impossible to fail it's irrational to try.
I love teachers melting down over reaping what they've sown.
this professor sounds like an arse:
> > I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
uhm, why not? smh. even if they contained answers - redact them and share. there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would like them.
anyway, more relevant to the article: get rid of guaranteed student loans and all of these problems will solve themselves imo. it's no shock people treat college like a joke when there's little at stake for them personally. add insult to injury with people trying to absolve them of bad decisions in the form of getting rid of the little accountability - loans - that they had.
two steps to success: 1. stop forcing college on everyone. 2. make colleges guarantee the loans. the quality of the students will change, resolving the issue the article author has.
> > I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.
uhm, why not? smh. even if they contained answers - redact them and share. there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would like them.
anyway, more relevant to the article: get rid of guaranteed student loans and all of these problems will solve themselves imo. it's no shock people treat college like a joke when there's little at stake for them personally. add insult to injury with people trying to absolve them of bad decisions in the form of getting rid of the little accountability - loans - that they had.
two steps to success: 1. stop forcing college on everyone. 2. make colleges guarantee the loans. the quality of the students will change, resolving the issue the article author has.
It's bizarre that someone claiming to be an English teacher doesn't grasp why people started and stopped reading. Your role existed solely to legitimize the print media industry and shall quietly disappear with its demise. You aren't special, nothing you do matters. Give up.
Average person is stupid. It took the author his entire career in education to reach this conclusion. Congratulations.
It is not fair to call ChatGPT usage as cheating. It is reasonable for a student to use all available resources. To expect anything else is foolish.
Also, in this day and age, expecting someone to pay $100-$200 for a textbook also is foolish. Educators look to be more self-serving than they realize.
Also, in this day and age, expecting someone to pay $100-$200 for a textbook also is foolish. Educators look to be more self-serving than they realize.
"They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. "
probably because they're bored. Giving a live lecture is the most disdainful form of teaching, using the slowest and most unbalanced way of passing info.
Video your lecture so that the students can watch it at 1.5x speed and do exercises during the class time so that the students are engaged if they decide to show up (which they are more likely to do if they don't have to sit through your live presentation at 1.0x speed).
They'll adjust.
probably because they're bored. Giving a live lecture is the most disdainful form of teaching, using the slowest and most unbalanced way of passing info.
Video your lecture so that the students can watch it at 1.5x speed and do exercises during the class time so that the students are engaged if they decide to show up (which they are more likely to do if they don't have to sit through your live presentation at 1.0x speed).
They'll adjust.
No, they won't adjust.
The students won't watch the recorded videos or do the readings. That's why we have to lecture live.
Then even if we get great students that will do the readings and watch the videos so we can do a flipped classroom; the students will complain that they had to teach themselves and tank the student evaluation scores compared to the lecture version.
Students expect lectures and dislike more active forms of learning even if they learn more. This is not their fault as it's what they've been trained to expect from K-12.
The students won't watch the recorded videos or do the readings. That's why we have to lecture live.
Then even if we get great students that will do the readings and watch the videos so we can do a flipped classroom; the students will complain that they had to teach themselves and tank the student evaluation scores compared to the lecture version.
Students expect lectures and dislike more active forms of learning even if they learn more. This is not their fault as it's what they've been trained to expect from K-12.
I had a lecture, where my professor would read from PowerPoint slides - that commonly contained 50 lines of text.
He was surprised nobody wanted to attend his lectures.
EDIT: fixed a lot of typos...
He was surprised nobody wanted to attend his lectures.
EDIT: fixed a lot of typos...
For the average student, does it actually matter whether they pass the class or not?
The social contract of "do well in school and you'll get a good job that allows you to afford live a decent life" is on increasingly shaky grounds thanks to things like the property Ponzi scheme reaching even higher levels of pressure, hiring in knowledge work positions being broken, and understandable uncertainty around how AI is going to reshape many positions.
If they're going to be fucked either way, can we blame them for not caring and instead focusing on the very little things that still bring them happiness?
The social contract of "do well in school and you'll get a good job that allows you to afford live a decent life" is on increasingly shaky grounds thanks to things like the property Ponzi scheme reaching even higher levels of pressure, hiring in knowledge work positions being broken, and understandable uncertainty around how AI is going to reshape many positions.
If they're going to be fucked either way, can we blame them for not caring and instead focusing on the very little things that still bring them happiness?
If that’s their attitude why are they paying for college in the first place? I could absolutely understand not thinking college has any benefit for them, I did exactly that, what I don’t understand is deciding to go to college and then not engaging with it.
I'm not American here - because "cushy" jobs require degrees. Any of them, but you need to have them. And because those jobs are often your bland office ones, they don't really require a lot of training/skill, so you're free to do them even if you were an below-average student at a bad major.
All that matters in paper.
(I'm not condoning it, in opposite - but that's a common line of thought)
All that matters in paper.
(I'm not condoning it, in opposite - but that's a common line of thought)
If one just needs a paper, not education, there are plenty of degree mills that will grant a degree at half the price and 10% time commitment.
Maybe they feel it is expected of them and aren’t really interested in the subject matter? I met an engineering student once who told me they hated it but their parents wouldn’t support them for their true passion (the arts). For some I think (given my experience at uni is 2 decades ago) they use it as an excuse to enjoy being young rather than do serious study.
As with so many modern debates, it feels like people quickly choose a side and then work backward—rationalizing every argument from that perspective without much critical thought beyond maybe acknowledging some surface-level issues (yes, phones exist and people are probably addicted to them). The author falls into this trap too!
Spending $100 on a single course material can be a real burden for college students taking multiple classes per term. Sharing lecture slides was a basic expectation decades ago. Students were cheating long before ChatGPT: The response like the one about the UGM could’ve just as easily been lifted from SparkNotes.
On the other hand: Maybe educational outcomes really are declining, but no one wants to pump the brakes because failing students might mean less funding. Maybe Socrates actually was noticing something real about generational decline—attitudes and norms do shift between generations; they’re not locked on some linear path. Maybe we need to just revisit the concept of university as vocational school in general.
We’re so preoccupied with proving we’re right that we lose the ability to honestly evaluate which changes deserve serious scrutiny and which ones are just part of the usual generational churn aside from the obviously massive ones (like phones). One side is wrong and stupid about all facets, my side is correct.
Spending $100 on a single course material can be a real burden for college students taking multiple classes per term. Sharing lecture slides was a basic expectation decades ago. Students were cheating long before ChatGPT: The response like the one about the UGM could’ve just as easily been lifted from SparkNotes.
On the other hand: Maybe educational outcomes really are declining, but no one wants to pump the brakes because failing students might mean less funding. Maybe Socrates actually was noticing something real about generational decline—attitudes and norms do shift between generations; they’re not locked on some linear path. Maybe we need to just revisit the concept of university as vocational school in general.
We’re so preoccupied with proving we’re right that we lose the ability to honestly evaluate which changes deserve serious scrutiny and which ones are just part of the usual generational churn aside from the obviously massive ones (like phones). One side is wrong and stupid about all facets, my side is correct.
The author says he's not "putting down" the students he's describing, but the codescention is spread so thickly through every paragraph that it's hard to believe him.
I concur with the other commenters about him also being disconnected from costs. Textbook prices, like those of other expenses related to higher education, have skyrocketed over the last five decades. [0]
[0] https://myelearningworld.com/textbook-prices-vs-inflation/
I concur with the other commenters about him also being disconnected from costs. Textbook prices, like those of other expenses related to higher education, have skyrocketed over the last five decades. [0]
[0] https://myelearningworld.com/textbook-prices-vs-inflation/
> The average student has seen college as basically transactional for as long as I’ve been doing this
It is a transaction. The number of students there because they want to learn a subject rounds to zero. A college degree (especially from good old State U) serves first and foremost as a white-collar job permit. The students (or their parents/lender/state) are purchasing the permit from the institution. They are the customer. Anything you, the employee, ask of them beyond the minimum to hold up the fig leaf is a waste of the students' time (from their perspective) and a violation of the implied terms of this transaction.