Spot on. It's telling that most DAW UIs are based on archaic ideas (like mixers/tracks and MIDI/step-sequencer grids). Even BuzzTracker (2009) outshines many of the current DAWs with DAG instrument/effects-chaining and arrow-key/cursor navigation.
My post-graduate research concerned signal-rather-than-event-based generation/transformation of compositional data, integrated with textural/timbral synthesis.
My current focus is building a DSP framework for this purpose in C++20 [1].
In any case I'm interested in following your progress, and happy to contribute code/ideas if you feel like collaborating (links in profile).
I make my own digital synthesis algorithms using (relatively, w.r.t. the field) esoteric mathematics. [1]
At some point (e.g. once I obtain patents) I hope to commercialize the processes involved as software/hardware instruments, but for now it's solely for my own practice. [2]
This is intriguing. If you can elaborate more, are you synthesizing something closer to waveshapes found in traditional synths or more towards totally novel sounds?
The project started a few years ago adapting generating functions to Complex waveshaping, with the waveforms correspond to certain constructions in optics, celestial dynamics, etc.
This has since been extended with an algebraic/modular approach to building more complex textures and rhythms. So the aim is to create totally novel sounds, but the traditional waveforms tend to pop-up from time to time!
Cultural optimism is likely to follow periods of growth and abundance, like buying a property in the 1970s for $5K and selling it in the 2000s for $2M. The last couple of decades have seen a reversal of this effect, so I don't think it's unreasonable that more people are feeling pessimistic about the future and their place in it.
The connection between language and humour is an interesting topic, and brings to mind the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (or more generally, linguistic relativity [1]).
It can be difficult to tell how much of a cue (or "clown" as you mention) is required/necessary for the joke to be understood. For example, even American comedians often deliver the punch-line in an overt/exaggerated way.
I've noticed (possibly broader) Chinese and Dutch humour depends much more on slapstick and stereotypes. Of course I probably wouldn't even register the more subtle humor from those cultures.
I've often wondered if there are unique (semantic & syntactic) qualities of the English language that lend themselves to more to particular kinds of (deadpan or sarcastic) humour, such as semantic ambiguity (cf. double entendres), variations in phrasing & tone), etc.
Even the German language can be abused for a similar purpose, as the following quote from [2] illustrates:
> Kafka often made extensive use of a characteristic particular to the German language which permits long sentences that sometimes can span an entire page. Kafka's sentences then deliver an unexpected impact just before the full stop—this being the finalizing meaning and focus. This is due to the construction of subordinate clauses in German which require that the verb be positioned at the end of the sentence. Such constructions are difficult to duplicate in English, so it is up to the translator to provide the reader with the same (or at least equivalent) effect found in the original text.
There seems to be a strong sentiment in this thread that the only value provided by education is the contribution to career (e.g. that loans should only be provided for financially viable courses, that studying arts is as useful to one's career as studying finger painting, etc).
This just seems so wrong.
Optimising for vocational training means you're effectively tuning out the abstract arts and sciences and... oh, the humanities. These fields don't usually/directly translate into a financial success, but they broaden our perspective and deepen our experience. And in doing so provide the tools and language to more effectively analyse and engage with human culture.
And to a certain extent, "true" art is antithetical to capitalism, in a similar way that "true" journalism is antithetical to surveillance (honesty/transparency vs main-stream popularity), and I'd argue equally as important. For that reason these fields absolutely should be subsidised, otherwise art becomes about marketing, journalism becomes about propaganda, and science becomes about start-ups...
Fact 1: Education in the US is very expensive, in large part because the ready availability of loans removes most downwards pressure on prices.
Fact 2: If you are loaned money to obtain a degree which is not economically valued then you will not be able to pay it back.
Fact 3: If you loan people money without expecting people to pay it back, then it's not a loan, it's a grant.
Fact 4: If you offer grants to high school graduates to take non-economically values classes, a lot of them will do so. This pushes up the cost of the education, and pushes down the wages graduates will make, excerbating the problem.
> For that reason these fields absolutely should be subsidised
Perhaps. But in which case by how much, by whom, and in what fashion? Because offhand offering free arts degrees sounds like one of the worst possible ways you could subsidise art as a field, and one of the best ways you can cause a lot of harm to young people while enriching the existing education institutions and not really advancing art at all.
Mind you...
> otherwise art becomes about marketing, journalism becomes about propaganda, and science becomes about start-ups...
Artists, journalists, and scientists have always had to earn a living. To the best of my knowledge, there was no "golden age". We've never subsidized artists (or scientists, or journalists) in the way you say we should; the future you're afraid of "becoming" is our present and past.
It is as likely that tying a university degree as the minimum pre-requisite for a decently paying career is driving the price upwards. Increased competition for desirable placements is the classic limited supply high demand scenario.
The problem isn't the availability of loans which are just a side effect but the focus of education as a gate to future success.
BTW from ancient times up until the last couple of centuries, patronage was often the primary income source for artists and scientists, the rich and powerful would subsidize them, offer sinecures to allow them to create, and the patron would get to show how wealthy and sophisticated they were.
> Increased competition for desirable placements is the classic limited supply high demand scenario.
I would suggest that if you believe the issue facing the US higher education system is a limited supply of places, you may not understand the US higher education system. In fact, if you look globally you'll find that the countries with low tuition are the ones who ruthlessly control the number of places.
In the US in particular you'll note that we went from around 45% of high school grads enrolling in college in 1970, to 70% enrolling in 2010, even as tuition climbed far faster than inflation. If 70% of all high school grads represents a "limited supply", what do you think the demand is?
(The number of places at elite schools is limited. It's actually not hard to explain why Harvard is expensive; the question is why everywhere else is too.)
> patronage
That was my point; I took skwosh to be arguing against a system where the wealthy purchased art/science/journalism for their own ends; my point is that this is the system we've always had: Private individuals (and latterly, corporations) being patrons of the arts, publishing newspapers, and funding scientific investigation. I believe skwosh was suggesting we move to a system where society as a whole should fund such things via taxation; I was pointing out that we've never had that.
You misunderstand the point about limited "places" (or at least the point I believe is intended).
For sake of argument, assume 90% of jobs out there are "bad jobs"--no prospect of real wage growth, declining stability, decreasing benefits--and the remaining 10% of jobs are "good jobs" (with some wage growth, stability, and benefits).
Assume also that it is widely believed that in general, to have a chance at landing a "good job" you need at least an undergraduate degree (necessary, not sufficient!).
In such a situation, will you not see everyone throw as many resources as they can into getting their kids a better chance of making it into one of those good jobs?
There's a lot you can quibble with but that's the "limited places" of significance, with demand for university education a byproduct of that more fundamental demand (for better positioning vis-a-vis the "good jobs").
This is thus more of a race to establish relative position vis-a-vis other entrants, so IMHO looking at tournament theory (etc.) is helpful for understanding the overall dynamics.
> In such a situation, will you not see everyone throw as many resources as they can into getting their kids a better chance of making it into one of those good jobs?
Absolutely, but the resources you can throw at it is strongly dependent on the availability of loans. Hence why we have $1.3 trillion in aggregate debt.
Basic income. Free tuition. An outright grant, no repayments. Literally zero barriers except ability for anyone, for any level of academic achievement in anything. Result: a culture with a lot more understanding of the real world, and the preservation of human and humane values, rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
That sounds like a very nice world to live in. It also doesn't sound much like our world. It's certainly not how any country on Earth operates.
One day, I hope and imagine, we will live in a post-scarcity world, and then yes, that sounds like a great plan for organizing society.
> rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
Perhaps we should wait to relax that focus once we've actually solved the problem. If you look around, you'll notice employment, especially among people 18-29, is a real challenge, while government finances and pensions are grossly underfunded.
It's the old hierarchy of needs thing; self-actualization is at the top of the pyramid not only because it's the most important, but because it relies on all the others being fulfilled in order to be an acheivable goal.
"That sounds like a very nice world to live in. It also doesn't sound much like our world. It's certainly not how any country on Earth operates."
We've had a system not a million miles different from the one described in Ireland since the 70's/80's. There are grants for school uniforms and books for those that cant afford them, the cost of a college degree is not exorbitant and is again covered by a grant for those that cant afford it (I went to college with several guys who were on the grant) There's always the focus on getting a job, for obvious reasons, but there are plenty of people who go back and re skill with a 2nd degree.
In Denmark students have since 1970 and actually dating back to the 50's had the right to SU (Statens Uddannelsesstøtte = government support programmes) in form of government grants and government subsidized loans for any students studying on a government approved list of mostly government subsidized secondary and higher education. Hope that triggers some anti-big gov't folks over there.
It is extremely unlikely that a post-scarcity world will ever occur without, say, a collective global work project. There is no financial incentive for private capital to initiate it. Just like the Internet (in its current form) would have never occurred without government funding.
The technology to bring about a post-scarcity world mostly exists, and we could get there very quickly (maybe 5-10 years). But, how do you convince the upper classes (who control the capital) to support it? How do you temper the common idea that 'the lazy people' will just do nothing all day? (like that's a bad thing)
"But, how do you convince the upper classes (who control the capital) to support it?"
This is a red herring. It's easy to assuming that such an enormous undertaking can be solved by "tax the rich". It doesn't work that way. There isn't enough money in the top 1% of the United States to pay for such a program. Inevitably a UBI would be paid for by the middle class, the meaty part of the bell curve.
This means people who took on debt loads to become a doctor, lawyer, whatever, and have worked hard to pay it down (and probably still are paying it down). $250k/yr sounds like a lot, but when you're paying back $400k worth of loans, it's really not as exorbitant as it sounds to many people -- especially if these same people are trying to buy a house, save for their kids' college, etc.
This seems more optimistic than I usually hear. Do you mind going into what you mean by "post-scarcity" and how we'd achieve it? Does it just mean a living UBI, or is there tech/infrastructure (extensive solar, e.g.) to be developed/built out as well?
Our current global scientific and engineering output is staggering, and it is continuously accelerating. If there was a global 'manhattan project' focused on this, then it would happen.
Global economic output is $80 trillion. There are 100s of millions of scientists, engineers, programmers, technicians in the world. Aside from the ideological complexities, which are probably intractable, it seems like it would be pretty easy to me.
What would it really take to provide basic housing, food, water, clothing, energy, and medicines to 7 billion people? Robotic automation, free / cheap energy, and access to natural resources.
we bulldoze away houses, we throw away food. meanwhile, people are homeless and hungry. Clearly we already live in a society of overproduction.
The difference is that the owners of the capital aren't willing to lose on their investments, and it's cheaper to bulldoze and throw away than to give it away or provide work maintaining the communities that these properties exist in/on.
People can do whatever they want to their property, no?
Do you personally allow homeless people into your house?
Problems you mentioned are real and tough, but the objections are very simplistic. Its very easy to demand others to do something, and distance yourself away.
appealing to individualism won't solve systemic problems. I don't have to house syrian refugee immigrants in my home personally to realize that europe has an ethical problem by refusing them and treating them the way they have been.
There is a long and historical precedent for demanding that people with excess amounts of capital owe a greater portion than those who own relatively little. There are material differences between the capitalists and all the rest of us, and those allow us to demand specific concessions from them.
That sounds great, but there's no free lunch and when you ask people to pay (a lot) for something, you're going to get their opinion.
Here's mine. I roughly divide human activities into jobs and hobbies. One ultimately builds enough value to support existence, one is primarily done for enjoyment. Education for the former can and should pay for itself over the long haul, so we're discussing who pays for hobby education.
Personally, I don't want to pay for other people's hobbies. I've volunteered to teach people some of mine, spending hundreds of hours with educational groups. But, I can't imagine forcing taxpayers to pay for university education in these things.
I'm sorry but, insinuating that humanities and arts are "hobby educations" is pretty rude and smacks of superiority complex.
Look at the achievements that have stood the test of time and become valuable to us as a species. It's a pretty beautiful blending of scientific achievement and artistic achievement. If this system can't encourage both, let's not go to war with the arts, let's make the system that we invented, support the things that are important to us.
Beyond that, from my perspective, more of my tax dollars will go towards issues and causes that I am personally conflicted with than ones that I agree with. The college loan issue will never compete with the size and scope of something like the military. So it's beautiful that you would be personally affronted by this use of tax dollars but: welcome to the club, est. 1776
Don't apologize for personal attacks, just refrain from them.
Any argument made by starting with calling someone rude or accusing them of having a superiority complex, can only be made better by instead empathizing with rather than dismissing opposing viewpoints.
What's even worse is patronizing a mis-characterization of someone's statement.
> I roughly divide human activities into jobs and hobbies.
This indeed is a rough characterization of life. At no point does shaftoe insinuate humanities and arts are 'hobby educations'. Rather it seems to me a simply capitalistic view that anything humans do well can be done for money, at which point we call it a job. Certainly that also includes artists and philosophers. Or another way to think about it, to be truly great at something you must spend the majority of your life doing it, at which point it probably also needs to pay the bills.
People should only be investing 5-figure sums of taxpayer's dollars to learn what they expect will be lifelong skills that will significantly increase their lifetime earning potential. In almost all cases, this is not Art History class.
Telling someone that their humanities education was all a hobby is a much greater insult than calling someone out, so I'll let the universe sort out who was the true meanie-head here lmao.
They are valuable. Myself and most of my colleagues make 6 figure+ with arts degrees. Journalism, Visual Arts, etc. On top of that, most of them manage engineers, or lead their projects. And the engineers who work with them would never be so naive as to insult their work or their education in the way that the individuals in this thread do.
Why don't you tell me how much you have donated to "the arts" before you demand that everyone else does so.
For context, I give 8% of my humble income to charities that feed the hungry and care for the sick. Is my dollar better spent funding a play that few will ever wish to see?
What? I'm not forcing anyone to do so nor even asking them to.
As far as I'm aware, none of us are allowed to pick and choose what our taxes go to or else I probably would give more to the arts than, say, the military.
No. It's not. I'm not trying to be rude here but I don't know why you keep making arguments for me. I never said that nor the last thing you think I was saying.
All I said was "hey maybe you're right there isn't a tangible value in terms of money in and money out but perhaps there are other, more-difficult-to-track reasons why the arts are important."
Basic income I think is going to have to happen at some point in our lifetime. There are just simply not enough jobs.
Please stop saying 'free' tuition. It's not free, it is just not paid by the student. Keep in mind that many states already have just this setup for in state students to use lottery money.
Basic income is my one hope from the next 4-8 years (because socially, we are screwed)
Much like with Obama, Trump and the Republicans are going to learn what is and isn't possible for the POTUS. And while there are many factors in the election, a significant chunk of the votes were poor whites who are traditionally opposed to social programs.
So on the off chance we build more factories, they are going to be modern (automated), dispelling that myth.
Which should set the stage for the Dems (or even the Republicans, but I doubt it) to pivot back toward being "the poor people's party" and finally get to push some of those social programs.
And the only one that really makes sense (at least, to me) is some form of basic income/guaranteed minimum income.
I am still sceptical that we'll see the real thing in our lifetimes, but I do think we can start down that path sooner than later.
It's also the mode of operation for ages 5-18, with a nation wide avg of 12K / year in spending per student. So that 160k-ish in spending is downright American, but spending 1/4-1/2 of it on college is a give-away, socialism, the very demise of lady liberty
The scope of someone going to college for say 40 years (from 20-60, for sake of argument) is a lot different than saying 4 years of education should maybe be an institutionalized cost. If you figure:
1. At 12K/year, base education runs a cost of 156K
2. At 20K/year, college education for 4 years runs 80K
3. At 20K/year, college education for 40 years runs 800K
Then what we're saying is 80K represents 50% of the educational costs we're all comfortable with sinking into base education. But letting someone never work and just go to college for free for 40 years would cost over 400% of the base educational costs. That seems like a totally different scale of issue to me. We're also probably hitting diminishing returns over what 4 years would prepare someone for, and I don't think the audience is that large. Most people want to go to college to get skills to then contribute something to society, whether or not today's economy specifically values what they want to contribute.
> Then what we're saying is 80K represents 50% of the educational costs we're all comfortable with sinking into base education.
You're making assumptions that we're all comfortable with paying for 12 years of education. I think the majority of that is a waste of time (and by extension money).
> Most people want to go to college to get skills to then contribute something to society, whether or not today's economy specifically values what they want to contribute.
Sure but I don't want to pay for that either. If people didn't get hand outs that hide the true price of college (i.e. government backed loans), the price of college would come down drastically. It's artificially inflated to match amount of money a student can expect to beg / borrow.
If there was going to be any type of "college for all", the only approach I'd advocate would be free education that was provided by the government itself (i.e. community colleges). At least that would have a downward pressure on tuitions at private institutions that would suddenly have to price compete against it. Anything else will just increase the problem further.
Sorry to lump you in, caveat that statement in whatever way makes you feel comfortable. Hopefully we can agree that at least as far as level of discussion goes, much more is made of college costs than of childhood education costs. I found to be a little absurd given the financial numbers involved (every kid goes through primary education, even if college is free it'll never rise to the level of every kid utilizing it, etc.)
> Sure but I don't want to pay for that either
I left a comment in another thread, but the amount of shit that is in the budget leaves every American with a feeling of "I don't want to pay for that". The DoD budget alone clocks in at over 8x the projected cost of free college education, very few people talk with vitriol about the hand-outs we're creating for the myriad of people that make up that apparatus.
> It's artificially inflated to match amount of money a student can expect to beg / borrow
I'm not as well read here as I'd like to be, but I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be such a magic fix. Professors aren't going to be too keen to take a pay cut here, and state universities aren't exactly making out like gangbusters right now. Is the idea that we'd have less students and less professors? What's the economic impact of seeing those jobs, and the dependent jobs in school communities, eliminated?
> Sorry to lump you in, caveat that statement in whatever way makes you feel comfortable. Hopefully we can agree that at least as far as level of discussion goes, much more is made of college costs than of childhood education costs. I found to be a little absurd given the financial numbers involved (every kid goes through primary education, even if college is free it'll never rise to the level of every kid utilizing it, etc.)
The big difference is that childhood education costs are primarily borne locally. Most, if not all, comes from local real estate taxes. If I pay those taxes I can reap the results (via my children attended a school I pay fore) ir I can vote with my wallet and live somewhere else that has lower taxes (and by extension lower quality education). Either way it's up to me.
> I left a comment in another thread, but the amount of shit that is in the budget leaves every American with a feeling of "I don't want to pay for that". The DoD budget alone clocks in at over 8x the projected cost of free college education, very few people talk with vitriol about the hand-outs we're creating for the myriad of people that make up that apparatus.
Saying, "He gets his daisy cutter so I want my free college!" is a fools argument. Just because there's other crap in the budget doesn't mean we should increase it further with more crap. It's just a different pile.
> I'm not as well read here as I'd like to be, but I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be such a magic fix. Professors aren't going to be too keen to take a pay cut here, and state universities aren't exactly making out like gangbusters right now.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of professors willing to teach for less. I don't even think they're a significant part of most budgets anyway but I doubt it'd be a problem.
> Is the idea that we'd have less students and less professors?
No the idea is to remove the artificial upward pressure on prices by having people pay for the education they want to receive.
> What's the economic impact of seeing those jobs, and the dependent jobs in school communities, eliminated?
They're being artificially inflated and maintaining a college loan bubble to keep them employed is asinine. Nobody has a right to a government subsidized job.
Plus it'd be better than the economic impact of trillions of dollars of student loan guarantees or the weight of those loans on our youth. College graduates with $160-200K of debt are common nowadays, even for in-state schools. That's a mortgage payment and they don't even have a roof over their heads to show for it!
People always want more. I've met plenty of people who had enough inheritance / other random windfall to just get by who still went to college and careers. If those who get it by random chance or family act as such, why should we assume that those who would get it from Basic Income would be any different?
You do realize that you met those people who did get that random windfall because they were working, not because they just took the money and ran, right?
Sure you might have met 20 of them. How many haven't you met because you're busy working instead of being where those folks hang out while they're not working?
Because self-actualization is a human need and for a lot of people education is a means for that. Because some of us enjoy creating things that are of value to others. Because life is more than survival, basically.
Are we talking about UBI, or about education? Because if it's UBI, what I mentioned was just one of the mechanisms by which it could work. But I honestly don't know if it would. I suspect it would, but we can't know without more research and tests. Human behaviour is too complex to model a priori.
> Basic income. Free tuition. An outright grant, no repayments. Literally zero barriers except ability for anyone, for any level of academic achievement in anything. Result: a culture with a lot more understanding of the real world, and the preservation of human and humane values, rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
Scarcity is a thing in the real world. We are nowhere near a point where we can produce more than is necessary for everyone to have everything they want at every point in their lifetime. Assuming that's even possible as there are things that are naturally limited. I mean, under the everything is free to everyone model, how do you determine who gets to live in the house on the cliff overlooking the ocean and who gets to live inland surrounded by tract housing?
Terrible, dystopian idea. You know education can't be "free", right? Unless you want to enslave educators and force them to work for nothing. In reality, the middle class will have half their income seized to subsidize the dependent class, being worked to the bone in mega corporations. Meanwhile, the elite will reap all the profits and pour them into more social control programs. Result of basic income will be a culture of demoralized serfs, totally dependent on a feudal corporate state for their survival.
> Basic income. Free tuition. An outright grant, no repayments. Literally zero barriers except ability for anyone, for any level of academic achievement in anything. Result: a culture with a lot more understanding of the real world, and the preservation of human and humane values, rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
Incorrect. This will foster a culture of inferiority because not everyone is equal. No matter what you do, the lower class will be jealous of the upper class and will always demand for more.
Money and education is solved? What about universal access to entertainment? Universal food? Universal housing?
By this line of argument, its not "incorrect" its just a wall to keep to separate ones of the others. Just because theres always a demand doesnt mean satisfying demands wouldnt make peope happier or better.
Really all I'm talking about is not defunding/sidelining Arts etc "because it's not financially viable".
The idea is really to provide a well rounded education, (giving students a broader perspective on the world, a stronger vocabulary for expressing ideas, etc), as opposed to a purely career focused one. I think it would be detrimental to culture and society in general if everyone was groomed from high-school to only ever consider the safe, paved, career footpath.
This may take the form of allowing for more electives in vocational courses, encouragement to take double degrees, or eliminating barriers for later study (letting people change their minds, or even just reskilling when the robots take over).
What I was meant by "subsidisation" is just the "somewhat" free education that exists in some places today, but has been more prevalent/widespread in the past. And while prioritising vocational degrees is fine to some extent, crippling participation in the Arts by making those qualifications prohibitively expensive (by not providing loans) is a bad idea imo.
Part of it is just a shift in mentality. When we viewed education as a net benefit to society that society was willing to pay for, there was a natural downward pressure on the cost of education since the public was shouldering most of the burden to educate people. Once we shifted to the mindset where an education was valued based on how much extra money the recipient could make during his/her lifetime, that downward pressure went away and market forces took over. Suddenly it was acceptable to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education because that shift in mentality meant that people would pay that much.
The result is our current educational system, where costs have ballooned and administrative and facilities costs dwarf the spending on actual education. I wish I could remember where I read it, but there was an excellent article that traced beginning of our rapidly increasing education costs to the era when Reagan was governor of California and he pushed that shift in mindset. The whole system and all the problems we're experiencing suddenly make perfect sense when you view it from that perspective.
I'd personally like to see a hybrid approach. We should identify a core curriculum that leads to a well-educated populace. Things like statistics and formal logic that make it much harder to manipulate people the way that our current politicians and media do. It should be free to study that curriculum. Anything beyond that, including vocational training, could be market based and lenders should consider the likelihood of repayment when loaning money for tuition.
I agree of course - a society with at least some understanding of statistics, logic, anthropology (of media), etc is essential to a healthy democracy.
It would be great to see political/cultural literacy taken more seriously, but the trend as you point out has been in the opposite direction (and has been/will be for some time).
Being burdened with debt and not having the choice to pursue further education are the real problems, and can hopefully be solved in a way other than restricting access to those fields.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in this thread... it's pretty cynical (but not uncommon) to suggest that one's primary value to society is what they contribute economically (or otherwise validated economically).
I'm lucky that the situation is a bit more optimistic here in Australia...
> statistics, logic, anthropology (of media), etc is essential to a healthy democracy
Thomas Jefferson said something similar:
An ignorant people can never remain a free people.
> one's primary value to society is what they contribute economically
There's an excellent video [1] of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter (if only we could get judicial nominations of this quality these days from either party, let alone Republicans) where he makes the point that lack of civics education is the largest problem in America today. I think he'd argue that one's primary value to society is being an informed citizen who votes and properly holds the government to account, which doesn't mean simply voting for the opposite party every 8 years because you're dissatisfied with life.
Especially after an election where it's so clear that many people are not being responsible citizens, either not voting or voting ignorantly, I with you in wondering why more people in this thread can't understand the value to society of a well-educated populace, regardless of how that education provides an economic benefit.
> Fact 2: If you are loaned money to obtain a degree which is not economically valued then you will not be able to pay it back
But for the vast majority of jobs people don't care what degree you have! In technology yes you often want someone with a particular degree. But if you're hiring a civil servant, a advertising executive, a business consultant, or any one of hundreds of other jobs, you can have any degree you like.
I have friends with theology degrees who work in business and earn more than I do in technology with my CS PhD. The companies that hire them value having people with a very wide range of academic backgrounds.
> I have friends with theology degrees who work in business and earn more than I do in technology with my CS PhD. The companies that hire them value having people with a very wide range of academic backgrounds.
That has nothing to do with their degree and everything with their ability. They would probably still get hired without the degree.
Degrees only really matter in formal subjects, if you're, say, studying to become a doctor. Attending a good university is not about the degree, it's about the network.
There is a lot of study on the idea that the main value of education is not what you actually learn but much more signal that you are dedicated, motivated and have the ability to learn.
There is a huge argument going on right now about how much of the value is signal vs actual knowledge you need for the job. There is a lot of evidence that suggest that signal is a huge part of the value.
Network does not really apply as a expiation because the effect appears even when transition to a place that you have no relationship with it.
> There is a lot of study on the idea that the main value of education is not what you actually learn but much more signal that you are dedicated, motivated and have the ability to learn.
A signal, I can agree with that. But isn't that only because someone is unable to signal that (s)he can be a valuable asset in other ways? The type of person to only rely on their degree is probably a person that isn't creative enough to find more effective ways to market themself.
I think education is great and learning new things is massively important in life. I just personally don't believe in the degree fetish that a lot of people have. Just look at the quality of the average graduate in a lot of universities and/or colleges in the US and Europe.
To me, at best, a degree is an inefficient way to differentiate yourself from a group of similar people with similar skills. Maybe not a bad thing if you're at the start of your career. But at worst, it has zero additional value.
I basically agree with you, but there is just a lot of people that don't. In IT you can get pretty far, without a degree. I did so, and I am very happy with that choice.
I don't see that working for a lot of other people I know.
I think the US is approaching numbers where you might really be better of without a degree in a increasing number of fields.
Most places will not take your resume seriously if you don't have a degree attached. Startups tend to be more lenient sometimes, but Big Corp. isn't going to touch you without a degree, nor will you have a promotion path without one.
It's the reality of the situation, and until there's a significant change in attitude, not having "a" degree is going to hurt your career prospects unless you're a wildly successful entrepreneur or have great connections/independently wealthy.
Why should the provide anything if the argument is true.
If anything this argument would suggest that you should have a private system of education and the government should spend all this money on research grants for things that are interesting, and/or useful.
As I said, their companies value diverse academic backgrounds. Not no academic background.
Let's look at some real jobs, outside the technology industry.
The UK civil service: "you need, or expect to have, a 2:2 degree in any subject or higher".
UK NHS project management role just requires "a degree" (the NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world).
Goldman Sachs graduate analyst "open to final year undergraduate and graduate level students from any field of study".
That's the reality. They don't care what degree, they just care about a degree. So if you're passionate about art history, get a degree in it. Almost nobody cares.
I’m not saying you’re not right, I just think it’s ridiculous. I've met plenty of people with various degrees (BS, MS, Phd) who are stupid as a rock, and I’ve met plenty without a degree who are well rounded individuals / smart as hell / can get the job done. That’s even outside of tech. In the end it really comes down to the individual.
Also, as an ability metric it’s an outdated one, and personally I would never pass on an employee just because (s)he doesn’t have a degree. Having a degree doesn't even mean someone will make a good employee. Results are infinitely more important than credentials. Most people just can't get stuff done.
I know this is tangential, but after working in engineering for the last 6 years its absolutely mind blowing how much this is a factor. Smart, likable, normal people who just never get any real, meaningful work done seems to be the complete norm. Hiring people (not a position i'm presently in) is an absolutely terrifying prospect to me, because I can't figure out any real way to separate the former from the latter.
> That has nothing to do with their degree and everything with their ability. They would probably still get hired without the degree.
You would think that, and it would logically seem to work that way. But in practice, it often doesn't.
A lot of employers are lazy, and use "has a degree" as a filter to cut down their applicants. And since there are so many applicants in nearly every field, it doesn't hurt the employer much. The biggest value in many degrees is literally just the ability to truthfully claim "I hold a degree", regardless of the field.
- - -
To improve that, we'd need to get employers to drop fake requirements from their job listings. But since there's (typically) only benefits to them for inflating their requirements, I don't think it's likely employers will willingly drop that requirement.
Variable interest levels for different courses of study commensurate with default or late payment likelihood. Required post-graduate government service for those who struggle but are ready to sacrifice. Critical demand area bonuses. There are practical ways to measure and respond to these problems.
You really don't need to pay tuition to gain a rich education in art and humanities and sciences if you want one. There are resources aplenty - buy a book!
I'd even go so far as to say the majority of college grads learned almost nothing during college, and the few who did would, after a few years of maturity, pick up a book of their own free will and enrich themselves.
I think the costs of university (huge amounts of debt and enormous human and physical resources put into holding lectures in giant buildings that need to be maintained and heated, the social divide created between those who got to hang out among the privileged for 4 years and those who couldn't) generally outweighs the hypothetical benefits you mention that some people might gain during college. Except perhaps for a few fields (like medicine, or dramatical arts, or music) where you can't just pick up a textbook and learn it all.
You could say that about anything though, and I'm sure many in engineering do (about everything from design patterns to category theory...).
The value added by quality in-person tuition shouldn't be underrated though, not to mention access to equipment, studios, and like minds...
Working and communicating in person is a hugely effective catalyst for productivity, creative evolution, etc. Artistic and scientific development is often accelerated by human interaction, which is why art movements and scientific advancements tend to cluster around communities (vs individuals).
Parent has a good point - there are very few specializations which cannot be learned with dedication and internet connection. Human interaction/team efforts for example are important, but in almost all cases you are under-trained coming from uni to real world and soon you'll pick it up in real life.
There are bad/mediocre universities/colleges, which don't give you almost nothing on top of what is currently available in few clicks. Most people out there graduate on those. I know, since I am one of them. All useful stuff I know now I learned on my own, either during studies (a bit) or working (most of it).
The only good reason why I don't regret university is campus life - but if you don't have a need for party-style episode in your life and human interaction in that style, then universities/colleges are not the best place to spend 5 of your most creative years. Unless also hunting for future contacts in elite places, but that's another topic.
> Working and communicating in person is a hugely effective catalyst for productivity, creative evolution, etc. Artistic and scientific development is often accelerated by human interaction, which is why art movements and scientific advancements tend to cluster around communities (vs individuals).
Sounds like Google, and they don't charge tuition.
Just reading a book is a not an effective way to learn, and the value of university is not that they make you read a bunch of books. The real value comes from interaction around that material with researchers and fellow students and being 'forced' to engage with that material to solve problems and doing your own research, as well as the feedback you get on that work.
Now I'll certainly agree that the cost of a University education in the US is much too high, and there are probably more efficient ways to get the same educational benefits, but to say that you can replace Universities with books is simply disingenuous.
"Just buying a book" is not a way for anyone to learn anything serious. There is a negligible fraction of actual autodidacts in this world, and they are not even usually the best and the brightest -- just a weird curiosity.
Go pick up a graduate mathematics textbook (or even an undergraduate one, I'll be generous) of your choice and try to learn from it without help from an instructor. I'll wait. Best case scenario, you will believe you understand it until you come into contact with someone who actually does and be horribly embarrassed. Or perhaps so self-satisfied with your ability to surpass everyone in the universe at understanding mathematics quickly and without help or discussion that you won't be able to even grasp the fact that you don't understand it. I've seen both first hand.
English and Philosophy (especially Philosophy) are exactly the same. You cannot learn philosophy from only reading textbooks. It's where you start, not where you finish. It's the bare minimum. It's what you should have done before you even show up to the class, at which point you begin learning nearly everything there is to learn about the subject.
Almost everyone learns a GREAT deal in college. Some people do learn so little they aren't even capable of understanding what it is they were /supposed/ to learn, and post on tech message boards about how college is a waste of time.
And, if you live in the US, patronize one of our great public libraries. If you're in New York or Boston, just walk in. If you're elsewhere you can borrow via interlibrary loan.
When it comes to student loans though, they should be given on someone's potential ability to actually pay them back, which is dependent on future career prospects.
I'm not against Arts or offering scholarships/grants for them. What I'm against is allowing a person to take out $160,000 of debt at 6% interest for an education that will land them a job as an administrative assistant. They will most likely carry that debt for the majority of their adult life.
It's bad for society to allow 18 year old kids that have a poor grasp of long term consequences to shackle themselves with such a financial burden. None have had long term full time jobs to appreciate how difficult it will be to pay back that much money.
Part of the problem here is that the terms/interest is so crippling that they can't take out another $160K debt to "pivot" into something more financially practical.
Further, I think having the availability/flexibility of studying multiple degrees can be immensely useful/rewarding. Particularly as industries get more advanced/sophisticated (and others get automated/downscaled), I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cultural shift towards continuous reeducation (at least, as much is financially practical/possible).
In home and auto loans, the asset purchased acts as collateral. Business loans, especially for small businesses, are difficult to get. If it were easier, I'm sure we'd have a problem similar to the student loan situation.
The collateral is a claim on future earnings, isn't it? In the UK, the student loans company gets back 9% of your salary post graduation and you cannot legally opt out until the loan is repaid provided you earn over a minimum threshold.
You can't squeeze blood from a rock. Sure, you can say 'hey let's garnish this guy's McD wages for the next 25 years' - but the collection costs are almost as much as you can get your hands on. Just not worth it. Well, only at very high interest rates, so that the good ones make up for the bad ones.
I'm not suggesting collateralized student loans, I agree that's difficult without a durable good. I'm suggesting a similar risk-based approach for determining the size of the loan. This would cut down on the number of people who have $200k in student loans and a MFA which generates no income.
The difficulty of getting loans for degrees which are less likely to be able to generate significant income might even lead to lower tuition at non-STEM schools (hey, a guy can dream)
Risk for loans is low(er) for material assets (because they can be repo'd), which is why interest on loans for them is so cheap. Education loans are priced 'correctly' by the market (i.e., very expensively), the 'problem' is that people consider them different from material goods because they're the best/only way for social advancement for many/most people (which I don't disagree with, I'm not making some sort of moral statement here, just explaining the mechanics.) So then 'they' (as in, some amorphous group of voters and politicians) want the government to step in, which creates disincentives all around, yadda yadda yadda and then we find ourselves in the situation we're in now.
So, to come back to your question, why don't we treat education loans the same as other loans - because 'society' doesn't think they're the same, for moral/equality/social mobility reasons. It's really as simple as that.
Why? Out of all the things to think are wrong, inability to pick a useless major based on financial status is wrong? As opposed to pollution in East Asia, conflict minerals in our supply chain, or slavery in shrimp fisheries in Thailand?
> These fields don't usually/directly translate into a financial success, but they broaden our perspective and deepen our experience.
Yes. Those are luxuries. For most of history, middle class people couldn't afford to study those fields. Colleges used to have much smaller enrollments. They'd either by A&M schools, used to help train up mechanics and farmers or engineering schools where you need to learn the math to become an engineer. Only a few prestigious ones (Yale, Harvard, etc etc) offered humanities majors, for landed gentry. The kind of people who didn't really have to work for a living.
> And to a certain extent, "true" art is antithetical to capitalism
That is ridiculous. "True" art has to appeal to an audience, and if it appeals, it will sell. You can't just put our art and say "hey, it's true, support me". That's a dangerously naive view of the world.
Yes, those things are also wrong. As are decreasing socioeconomic mobility, racially & religiously motivated violence, lack of code hygiene and unit testing, etc...
If you read my and other responses in this thread, the arts/humanities are far from useless (they just have a less direct economic effect).
Historically important art/music has often been ignored, ridiculed, censored, etc. To suggest that it only has social/cultural value if it appeals to a popular/paying audience is overly simplistic.
I'm not saying there's no overlap between capitalism and art in general, but if they're perfectly aligned then we miss the challenging, obscure, alternative, upsetting, disruptive, etc.
> If you read my and other responses in this thread, the arts/humanities are far from useless (they just have a less direct economic effect).
I never said arts/humanities are useless. I said they are luxuries, and the fact that people are bemoaning that it costs so much money to enter a non-lucrative profession is the very definition of a first world problem.
> Historically important art/music has often been ignored, ridiculed, censored, etc. To suggest that it only has social/cultural value if it appeals to a popular/paying audience is overly simplistic.
It might very well have social/cultural value. If you're not independently wealthy, you'll want it to appeal to a popular and paying audience if you like having food and shelter and toys.
> I'm not saying there's no overlap between capitalism and art in general, but if they're perfectly aligned then we miss the challenging, obscure, alternative, upsetting, disruptive, etc.
They're not perfectly aligned. However, if your "art" doesn't align with a paying audience, be prepared to be a starving artist with huge student loans. Society is not beholden to you to help you self-actualize your life. Get a job that pays money, and then do your obscure art in your spare time.
I agree with the sentiment though, that (in general) an Arts degree (or whatever) alone it's not enough to sustain a career.
I just think it's an important part of a balanced education, and that overall society is better off having more engagement with the arts, language, history, philosophy, cosmology, theoretical physics, category theory, linguistics, anthropology, etc.
As I said elsewhere, prioritising vocational education is fine to some extent, but to do so by crippling participation in the Arts by making those qualifications prohibitively expensive (by not providing loans) is a mistake.
It is a luxury of sorts, but not in the frivolous sense. As I see it, it's not so much a problem of optimising higher education for career payoff, but restructuring/regulating education to make it more accessible (both to encourage participation in a wider range of subjects, and to facilitate career change).
> I never said arts/humanities are useless.
>> inability to pick a useless major
Note that I said the major was useless, not the area of study. Out of all the career areas in the world right now, the one that cares least about credentials seem to be the humanities, unless you want to go into academia (which is a whole new can of worms.)
> but to do so by crippling participation in the Arts by making those qualifications prohibitively expensive (by not providing loans) is a mistake.
No, the point is that these qualifications a) aren't inherently prohibitively expensive (a library card and or a paint set doesn't cost 30k a year) and b) make it easy for you to take out crippling amounts of loans you have very little chance of paying back. Nobody needs these qualifications you speak of.
> There seems to be a strong sentiment in this thread that the only value provided by education is the contribution to career
I don't believe that's the sentiment at all. Few on here will argue against the value of a well-rounded liberal arts education. However, the sentiment is that if an education requires borrowing piles of money, it should lead to employment which can realistically service the loan.
There are still people in the US without access to clean water. In some parts of the country, primary and secondary school education is abysmal.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a question of priorities. Sure, I love the humanities, but the government only has so many tax dollars, and studying Shakespeare in university is not a priority.
I feel like the value of adversity is lost sometimes on HN. We should be especially familiar with it. Earning a high level of income makes life extraordinarily comfortable, to the point where it is easy to become complacent and stop trying to really contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Some times a struggle is not a bad thing. Not to the point where one should be homeless or starving of course, but having everything handed to you (even if you have worked hard in the past) doesn't always result in the best of outcomes.
This sentiment is so bizarre from a European perspective. So the only thing that stops people from getting an education willy nilly is student debt? Or American engineers are all better in some respects than German engineers because of their debt?
What I (as a fellow European who considers the American student loan craze equally bizarre) read into the "struggle" part of nightski's post is that people approach a given education opportunity very differently knowing that it is costing them (or, probably even stronger in most cases: their parents) a lot of money, vs. knowing that it is free. I sure hope that I would have crunched harder during that time knowing that it was a crazy expensive bet and not just the opportunity cost of not entering the workforce early.
What I am not so sure is wether that hard crunch would have actually been better. I suspect that without the more freewheeling approach of European universities, I would have gone even deeper into the pointlessness of learning for the grade instead of learning for the education.
Generally speaking, my impression is that many people wildly overestimate the per-head cost of low intensity university education. Without artificially inflated budgets (driven by the misuse of tuition height as an indicator of academic quality), a few lecture halls, some professors and the usual lower echelons of academia who are basically donating their time for peanuts and the chance to occasionally publish seems to be an absolute bargain compared to other programmes designed for keeping people off the streets.
The reality is that you can get a really good college education for rather cheap in the U.S. if you are smart about it. I could of gone to a local state college for 1/10th the tuition of a private school and received an education at a very similar level.
I just feel that a free for all education system (ala Bernie Sanders) would be detrimental. Having things be somewhat exclusive and require some amount of effort is not necessarily a bad thing. Germany itself imposes exams for example (although I don't know how difficult they actually are personally).
Germany doesn't impose any exams at all. The only limiting factor is that you qualify for university and maybe your grade, if the number of applicants requires it.
There are no exams that need to be passed, no essays need to be written or anything of the sort.
Depending on the course/university there's limited space, of course. The problem is when this "exclusivity" that you mention is purely based on who can pay, that is what's detrimental.
I'm really not sure why you're getting downvotes. If I could go back and change my education path, I'd absolutely go the community college route for two years then complete my education at state college.
Having things be somewhat exclusive and require some amount of effort is not necessarily a bad thing.
Getting into your first choice program at your first choice university often requires a lot of effort, and the people who graduate from those programs are often part of a somewhat exclusive group. It's just that the effort required is entirely on your academic and intellectual qualifications rather than financial and persona connections.
Your comment is the typical lack of perspective I expect from HN. Going to college is extremely stressful. Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible.
>Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible.
This is not true. If you are poor (actually poor), there are so many government grants and scholarships for low income students that it's much easier financially than if you are middle class.
If you are middle class, your parents frequently have to give up half a year's salary to help pay. Good luck going to college if you're not a top tier student and your parents refuse to help pay tuition.
>>If you are poor (actually poor), there are so many government grants and scholarships for low income students that it's much easier financially than if you are middle class.
Availability doesn't automatically lead to discoverability or accessibility. Most grants require a ridiculous amount of paperwork and the ability to navigate a complex bureaucracy, which poor families have neither the time nor the skill for. A lot of the parents in poor families work multiple jobs. Some barely speak English.
There may be less poor people in college, but it can be easier for poor people to pay. There is sort of this no man's land where a person (or their family) makes just too much for assistance, but not really enough to pay. My family fell into this area while in college, and I worked 20-30 hours/week on top of a normal 12-15 hour course load. To make up when I took 12 hours, I also went to both summer sessions each year. It was a long 4 years as I had maybe 3-4 weeks out of school each year, and zero time out of work.
This is a case of middle-class complaining how they dont get the same benefits than a poorer-class. It can be unfair, but secondary to the reality that being poor makes college way more difficult even with that help.
Low enrollment is not because of ability to pay tuition for low income. Many poor people don't enroll because they didn't have encouragement from family or they had other obligations (e.g. taking care of family members).
> Earning a high level of income makes life extraordinarily comfortable, to the point where it is easy to become complacent and stop trying to really contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.
All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services. A consumer will then buy one of these goods or services because that consumer has decided the value of the good/service to them is greater than the value of the dollars they'd need to pay for it. E.g., If you have decided to buy a car for $10k cash, then you have decided that having the car now is more valuable to you than having $10K USD now. The fact that the car exists and is available for sale has thus enriched your life, by giving you the option to buy it. The car's makers are providing a service to others.
As a result of each purchase, both sides ends up with greater total value than they had before. When people trade, both are better off.
A tremendous income generally comes from delivering tremendous value in the world to others. There are many layers of indirection involved, so it's difficult to see for one's self how one's job (like an office job or financial job) improves the lives of others in the general case, but through trickle-down effects it always does if you follow cause and effect through enough steps.
Or for a clear and notable example, consider the game of Minecraft. It was largely developed by a single individual, Markus Persson aka Notch. He sat down and used his game development skills to produce something marvelous. Many people came along and each decided to pay Markus $X for his game Minecraft, and since over 100 million copies have been sold, Markus became a billionaire. Many people found great enjoyment in the game, and Markus gained a great number of dollars.
In general, tremendous income results from delivering tremendous value. Our society is working correctly and incentivizing the right things if this is the result of ethical business dealing. Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.
> Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.
Yeahhh no, income is a laughable measure of one's contribution to society.
Labor is a market as any other, and salary is a function both of the value provided as well as supply vs. demand.
In the Valley, VC-funded technology companies can afford to pay exorbitant salaries but are a gamble as to whether they will provide any net value, as evidenced by their ability or inability to develop a sustainable business.
Other distortions exist like rent-seeking or manufactured demand require serious mental gymnastics to see as a contribution to the world but can support high incomes.
> All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services.
Taking a page out of Ayn Rand?
Corporations exist to enrich their owners, which is great; however providing a useful good or service is a sufficient but not necessary condition of doing so.
> Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.
How about inherited wealth? Large groups of people are excluded from your wonderful vision of society.
I don't understand the hate inherited wealth gets here sometimes. It is the only realistic way to improve your family's lot in life over the generations.
It's not at all compatible with the view that wealth reflects your contribution to society (expressed upthread). Or individualist meritocracy which HN is so fond of.
It's hilarious that the one thing that is consistently down voted on hn is economic orthodoxy.
This is absolutely no different to the anti vaccination movement.
People are simply too lazy and arrogant to listen to what the economics profession has to say, and ignore that fact that the methods, organization and incentives of the economics profession are identical to the rest of academicia.
Which side of economics, the "freshwater" or "saltwater" side? There isn't the kind of consensus in economics that there is in, say, climate change. And economics is much more susceptible to funding-based distortion.
Both freshwater and saltwater would agree with the comment I replied to. freshwater and saltwater econ differ in their approach to macro models. Both sides broadly agree on general equilibrium theory as kind of first order approximation, and the post was a summary of general equilibrium theory.
Which side do you think would disagree or are you just trying to bluff me out with technical terms you don't fully understand?
As to funding, can you point to major sources of funding for academic econ research that would introduce bias?
I totally get you, but then the question is: do you need to get into a "top" and super-expensive college to get a good education in humanities and abstract art and similar?
Because, unless you're rich or get a very good scholarship, I guess that going to that kind of college makes sense only if you plan to pursue a high-paying career.
Backwards. Top colleges have the best need-based financial aid. You rack up enormous debt at average colleges (or by going to a top college when your parents could pay for it but won't).
Look, if you get a full ride at a top school, then obviously you should do it.
Nobody disagrees about that.
That's not the question though. Because apparently students have 1 trillion dollars of debt. So apparently people are NOT receiving full rides to everywhere.
The population we are discuss is this 1 trillion dollars of debt.
Harvard and company are doing massive amounts of needs-based scholarships now. If you are a high-flying middle class person you can probably pay either nothing or very little. They have massive endowments, to the tune of many tens of billions of dollars, they can fund their operation out of the interest.
On the other hand this benefits them as an institution since they can soak those legacy students for every hundred-thousand that daddy is worth and let them coast through on the reputation of those high-flyers.
> These fields don't usually/directly translate into a financial success, but they broaden our perspective and deepen our experience. And in doing so provide the tools and language to more effectively analyse and engage with human culture.
What concrete evidence leads you to think this is true?
As far as evidence goes, more experiential - I've studied visual and sonic arts at a few different universities/colleges (in Australia). Generally, not many found financial success in their chosen field.
The only value provided by education is certainly not contribution to career. The question is should certain types of education be more directly subsidized by taxpayers than others.
The underlying theory of subsidizing tuition is that a college degree increases lifetime earnings, which increases GDP and the tax base, ultimately paying for itself. Generally speaking, investments which do not pay for themselves are considered bad ones.
Taxpayers don't want to make bad investments in subsidizing college education. Clearly this is happening at a massive scale, but I think liberal arts degrees are just the scapegoat. The reality is that $1.3 trillion in mostly unpayable and undischargable debt is a problem much bigger than earning the wrong degree.
With the housing bubble and subsequent crash [1], the truth is that not everyone should have a mortgage, and pushing the homeownership rate above 64% was not sustainable. But college degree rates are on a much longer term and steady rise, and there's not clearly a bubble [2] but maybe I'm looking at the wrong data.
If $1.3 trillion in student debt didn't actually result in significantly more people getting degrees than otherwise would have, then we are talking about a completely failed policy which is merely padding school endowments. Literally nothing to do with choice of degree.
Imagine an alternative policy; making a $1.3 trillion investment in building and endowing 5,000 public universities. Significantly increase the supply of college education to drive down the cost. Would that have worked better?
Where you are wrong is that it's not just about money, it's about accountability.
Smart investing is the same whether the returns are financial or something else (citizenship, etc.): Someone needs to make good decisions about which investments are good and which aren't. If I believed your romantic notion of the humanities reflected reality in the classroom, that would be a great investment. But I don't believe that's true for many students.
Sure, through the lens of "smart investing", an arts degree is a shitty investment, and therefore shouldn't be funded. I just think that's a bit reductive, and that the value provided by those programs can be hard to quantify.
I agree that many students probably gain nothing at all from studying arts, but many do, and become better people, professionals, politicians, etc.
Studying these fields (or communicating with people who have (even watching documentaries)) helps to understand and contextualise the world, and to articulate those (often complex and abstract) ideas.
Of course, many people come away with nothing, and many with only the most superficial understanding, but an educational climate with less participation in the arts, humanities, theoretical sciences, etc would suffer a net reduction in cultural capital, political discourse, etc.
> tuning out the abstract arts and sciences and... oh, the humanities
Kind of ironic you say that, since the humanities programs themselves "tune out" all recognition to Eastern/South American/African art and humanities. I took 3 required "western traditions" classes, and except for a brief study of sumerian/egyptian cultures, the vast majority centered around dead white men.
You're absolutely right! A broader perspective, deeper experience, and the ability to effectively analyze and engage with human culture is immensely valuable. So, how valuable do you think all of those are when measured in terms of dollars and human lifetimes?
I'd go so far as to suggest that learning the tools and language to construct a building, treat cancer, or program a computer all may offer significantly upside for human culture and civilization. This is in potential constract when items in that list are neglected in favor of Roman poetry, post-modern art, or dissecting the rhyming schemes of long-dead authors.
The humanities have their place, but the list of things that broaden our perspectives and deepen our experiences is literally the list of all subjects that can be studied. The humanities have no monopoly on perspective, experience, or reasoning.
Absolutely not, especially now when the mechanisms of compensation have been democratized so well. Beyond that, Andy Warhol (et al) would be amused to learn that real art and capitalism were conceptual enemies. NB: I'm assuming you're using "antithetical" to mean that their successes are inversely proportional.
Not inversely proportional, just somewhat orthogonal, reflecting a (largely) different set of priorities.
Plus I'm not sure that the "mechanisms of compensation have been democratized so well", as you claim. (Which is to say it's all still largely driven by major label interests [1] [2].)
It's not clear to me why (in the pattern presented) the decorators don't return a subclass (which would preserve the dynamic and static properties and methods, etc). Instead you get hacks like `hoist-non-react-statics` to copy them over manually.
For context, the article advocates the following:
import GlobalClass from 'global-class'
const decorator = SuperClass =>
class extends GlobalClass {
render() {
return <SuperClass {...etc}></SuperClass>
}
}
This can be rewritten to remove the fixed dependency on `GlobalClass`, while preserving the underlying type:
const decorator = SuperClass =>
class extends SuperClass {
render() {
// const SuperClass = super.constructor // if you want to be less explicit...
return <SuperClass {...etc}></SuperClass>
}
}
The only requirement is to maintain the contract outlined by the `SuperClass`, but that's what `super` is for. (By that I mean e.g. that `componentDidMount` should't be overwritten without also calling super.componentDidMount() before/after).
Returning a different kind class entirely limits the utility of the pattern in general (IMO), and you lose the nice function-composition-like behaviour provided by `super.method`.
In our experience inheritance causes a lot of hard-to-find issues, and muddles boundaries between component concerns. Some of the same problems I described we had in mixins also apply to inheritance.
>and you lose the nice function-composition-like behaviour provided by `super.method`.
We found this to be an anti-pattern. It’s easy to get lost in virtual calls across hierarchy, and people are going to create virtual methods (and override them) if you allow it.
>Instead you get hacks like `hoist-non-react-statics` to copy them over manually.
An alternative is to just not put static methods on component. It’s not such a useful feature.
My guess is that in OO you are typically only parameterising `this`, and therefore only talking about one facet of the domain. Family polymorphism (or virtual classes) provide a way around this...
I think the most important skills you can learn as a programmer are the fundamentals, including control (continuations, generators, etc), data patterns/structures (template method, functors, etc), and systems (distributed, databases, etc). This requires study, and University is a great place for that, not only for the courseware, but for the available resources and community as well. Look at it as more of a vehicle for what you want to learn, rather than a series of trials you have to work through.
The fundamentals make it possible to learn new frameworks, libraries, idioms, etc very quickly. And being able to draw on solutions across computer science gives you a huge advantage in problem solving for the real world.
But if you just want to be an Angular or React hack you'll definitely have some success working through tutorials, vlogs, etc. But ultimately I think your value will be limited (by comparison).
I tend to agree (though I appreciate divergence from time to time).
The real value (for me) in HN (and Reddit) is the discussion (as opposed to the articles themselves).
HN is somewhat unique in having a diverse and (usually highly) technologically literate user base, often generating interesting and thoughtful discussion on a range of tech related subjects.
The discussion on these OT posts is limited by comparison. Experiences and insights are replaced by speculation and conjecture.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but hopefully I'm getting my point across. I enjoy technology and business discussion from all skill/experience levels, including JavaScript noobs and emerging businesses. I can't really say the same for amateur discussion of general topics.
My post-graduate research concerned signal-rather-than-event-based generation/transformation of compositional data, integrated with textural/timbral synthesis.
My current focus is building a DSP framework for this purpose in C++20 [1].
In any case I'm interested in following your progress, and happy to contribute code/ideas if you feel like collaborating (links in profile).
[1] https://github.com/synthetic-methods/xtal