
The Academic Bubble - Watermelon
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/the-academic-bubble/
======
Emore
Oh. Another "the next bubble is in academe" post. How interesting. It even has
the same graph as all others. Fascinating.

Excuse my completely non-constructive comment, but am I the only one who
thinks this topic has been dissected enough?

~~~
yequalsx
It is annoying seeing these posts. However, perhaps there is a great
opportunity for hackers in this market.

I've created a bunch of my own videos (like Khanacademy but better) and have
been teaching online classes for 5 years at a community college. My experience
is that roughly 30% of the students pass my class without any interaction from
me. They just need to be pointed in the right direction and need to know in
what order the topics should be covered.

This fact, coupled with the fact that all elearning websites suck make for an
opportunity. I don't know enough about programming to pull off my ideas on
what can be done. There are inefficiences in the market but not as much as
articles about academe being the next bubble suggest.

------
T-R
In paragraph 2 he seems to imply that the curriculum isn't broad enough,
lamenting the loss of "useless" classes, but then in paragraph 4 he seems to
claim it's too broad and that new classes are useless, as evidenced from his
claim that no one is making money off of Statistics or Machine Learning, and
his implication that someone who didn't start their own company would have
been better off as a police officer.

He seems to imply that perhaps grading is not as strict as it used to be,
referring to some higher education as "virtuous slacking", but doesn't provide
any supporting information to make such a claim.

He calls higher education a status symbol, referencing the increasing prices,
mentioning that many take out loans for higher education, briefly going out of
his way to mention government. He reinforces with a claim that people go to
college because others do, rather than because they've simultaneously
converged on the idea that it's a good investment. He doesn't provide any
evidence that higher education is actually viewed as a status symbol.

More significantly, though, the author doesn't propose or imply any solution
for the system as a whole, or even one of his pain points. The article is
vacuous and unfocused. What I've learned from this article: The author doesn't
like the current state of higher education, and his mother had to walk uphill
both ways to get to school.

------
gamble
It's interesting how many stories appear on HN claiming that too many people
have college degrees, when a historically _low_ proportion of Americans have
degrees in comparison to other nations. The proportion of Americans with
degrees - around 25% - hasn't changed since the 1970s. Back then, that was the
highest proportion in the world. However, since the '70s other countries began
taking post-secondary education seriously. There are at least ten countries
with a higher proportion of college grads. If too many people have degrees in
the US, then you'd expect graduates in those countries to be despondent. Heck,
Canada is over 40%. The country should be in open revolt if things are really
that bad.

------
COP
Maybe it is time for an educational reform:

<http://www.actonmba.org>

<http://kaospilot.dk>

<http://www.knowmads.nl>

Epistemological mastery just leave us knowing. A lot of time we know how to do
something, but we just don't do it. Perhaps it is time to start ontological
mastery <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406>

------
alttab
Regardless of what school you go to, the education gained rests on the
shoulders of the student and their engagement levels in their own learning.

Education has less impact these days because kids increaswingly expect to be
taught, not to learn. Laziness and the expecttation of employability is just
as much the problem as the university tuition rates.

~~~
barnaby
Every generation has been lazier than the last since the days of Plato, and
we've not degenerated into sloths yet. Skyrocketing tuition rates in an
oversaturated educational-services market are a new problem, one that will
cause an economic bubble in academia.

I wouldn't worry about listless youth, I would worry instead on the absolutely
horrible investments they're making in education.

------
ahoyhere
Did nobody notice the other articles linked at the bottom of this one? For
example:

"Black Children Do Not Need a Western-style Education"

I, for one, would like to see a little bit more criticism of things being
posted to HN, and their sources. Because once people know the HN push-button
issues, unquestioning readers can be easily lured down the path to thinking
and believing very nasty things.

Despite what the 'logical' HN cannon says, an author's background and intent
actually matter very much. It may be popular on HN to assume that only facts
matter, but I invite you to read the following piece to see how "facts" (real
things that really happened) can be skewered by intent:

[http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-
biodive...](http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-
biodiversity/black-children-do-not-need-a-western-style-education/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm confused. How are facts skewered by intent?

The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children
are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black
children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education
process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black
children from white children, except for the minority who have the aptitude
for school.

His reasoning and data gathering process seems no worse than most newspaper
columns (which are, in general, pretty bad). I don't agree with his
_conclusion_ since some of the _values_ he is basing them on differ from mine,
but that doesn't mean his facts are wrong.

So how, pray tell, has he skewered facts? And why does that mean we should
ignore another author who shares a site with him?

~~~
ahoyhere
He quoted an entire, extremely racist essay to support his point. That way he
let somebody else argue in his stead, without getting his hands dirty.
Example:

"Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics."

"Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom"

"One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”"

"Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different
view of government from whites."

"Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense."

"But the real black is not on television..."

There's no way you can take these statements and say they are anything but
flat-out racist. It's one thing to say "This is my experience in a certain
school with black students" and it's another thing entirely to say "Blacks
are." If the author is telling the truth, then he mentions many "facts" of his
experience.

However, he doesn't settle for merely reporting it as his experience. He
skewers those facts - with intent - into de-personalized blanket statements.

Which are clearly and irrefutably racist:

"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism>

Him allowing that there might be a few "specially sensitive blacks" doesn't
excuse him from racism.

Now, again, the author of the "essay" in question quoted this other author
more than at length -- he quoted him in full. While he studiously did not
MENTION the entire essay length piece embedded in his blog post, he clearly
condones it. There's no way around it: racist, of the highest degree.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You've convinced me that Alex Kurtagic is racist, which I never really
doubted. You have yet to explain why pointing out this fact invalidates his
reasoning, or the reasoning of Scott Locklin.

In fact, I don't think you even are trying to argue against his reasoning. I
think you are instead attempting to lull us into a false sense of sharing an
identity with you. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research,
can end up with us conforming to your other ideals as well -- if we believe
they go part and parcel together, we will, on some level, strive for
consistency [1].

You are hoping that if we pay a lot of attention to Alex Kurtagic being
racist, we will share an identity with you ("I'm not racist at all"). Then,
based on a shared identity, we will assume that Scott Locklin's opinions must
be wrong, without even examining the content of his argument.

I think HN is smarter than that [2].

[1] Yes, I did steal that paragraph.

[2] I realize I'm playing the same game ahoyhere is.

