Comment by gonzobonzo
8 months ago
Talk is cheap; if you want to see what people really believe, ignore what they claim and look at what they actually do. And when you do that, you see that people generally don't find typical college classes to be worth it outside of the credentials they give. Almost no one with a CS degree goes back to college to take a college algorithm course when they want to get better at algorithms; they study on their own. You can look at plenty of the HN discussions about "how do I learn X" or "how do I get better at X"; almost none of the suggestions are "go to your local university and audit some classes."
The issues with Edutech are mostly because they're bolting it on to the same broken system that people don't find value in. But the original comment wasn't about Edutech. When people want to learn new things, they largely do it without either typical college classrooms or Edutech, because the alternatives are so much better than anything coming out of the broken academic morass.
Conversely, if we're noticing what people actually do, you'll realize close to zero people who want to pursue computer science are doing it on their own.
And not due to a lack of information. The draw of education hasn't been access, not since the internet anyway. Structure, pacing, curriculum, schedule, and measurement cannot be recreated.
I've had many people tell me they're going to learn to program online. Almost all of them fail.
At the end of the day, we go home and we don't crack open a textbook. We sit and watch TV. Maybe we go for a walk or go to the gym. The vast majority of people do not have the mindset required to be self-educated.
We used to do the "everyone self-educate" thing. Most people couldn't read or write. Humans are unintuitive. You can't just give them access to things and expect results. They require accountability, they require structure. We're not machines, we're faulty fleshy creatures. Our reward feedback loops were never built for self-determination at this high of a level.
> Conversely, if we're noticing what people actually do, you'll realize close to zero people who want to pursue computer science are doing it on their own.
That's not true though? Many people are trying to increase their CS skills through self-study. This topic even comes up a lot here, with people recommending the self-studying they've been doing in CS.
> I've had many people tell me they're going to learn to program online. Almost all of them fail.
Yet there are still a large number of self-taught programmers.
Of course, more people will have an incentive to learn through the university system than through self-education, but that's because the current system says that you only get the highest level credentials if you go through a university education. Naturally, a system that explicitly biases a certain form of education to a large degree is going to cause more people to do that. But that's for the credential, not the education. When the credentials are taken out, we see people do better with other forms of education.
Mooc completion rates hovered at single degree percents.
The vast majority of people do not complete.
The people who do complete are outliers. I suppose we can build for outliers, but then most people are just going to be ignored in this system, and if they have way to respond (vote), they won’t be happy about it.
3 replies →
> We used to do the "everyone self-educate" thing. Most people couldn't read or write.
Do you regard that as intrinsically problematic? The people themselves weren't unhappy about their state, and society, too, could function well without mass literacy. There was a certain period where we thought training wage workers for their duties required them to be literate, but that might turn out to be unnecessary, if supplying an LLM is cheaper overall than mandatory school education.
Yes, because it's hostile to democracy and freedom as whole. Even if we could let everyone not read and write and use LLMs, this is just asking for trouble. Reading and writing is precursor for other skills, in fact, just about every skill.
This includes analysis, critical thinking, skepticism, morality, you name it. Without literacy, people are easy to manipulate. It won't happen immediately, but it won't be long until we revert to a world state where organizations like the Catholic Church control everything and order around millions of people to kill each other.
Sure, but regardless of what the better way to learn is, a large part of the purpose of a degree is to demonstrate to potential employers that you have a certain proficiency in a field. Universities stake their reputation and accreditation on being able to measure that proficiency. We've spent thousands of years figuring out how to do that in various ways. Maybe some day it will be easy to do that for course loads that heavily utilize LLMs, but I don't think we're quite at that point yet. Certainly they have value in assisting with learning, but it's important to defend the old methods until we get there.