
This University Teaches You No Skills – Just a New Way to Think - e15ctr0n
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/minerva-project/
======
ritchiea
This is absurd. The idea that a university should teach you to think rather
than teach you job skills isn't a new idea, it's the core principle of a
traditional liberal arts education. Visit virtually any liberal arts college
in the US and you'll find a place where the professors value teaching critical
thinking and communication skills. Typically there are small discussion based
classes where participation is a portion of your grade, and lots of writing
assignments.

That said, according to the article there is one interesting innovation here.
While traditional liberal arts schools value critical thinking over tangible
skills, students still pick a major and working on a major within an academic
department usually means being prepared for graduate school in that
discipline. Instead this school tasks its students with creating something
novel within their concentration, which is potentially a great way to
compromise between the lofty ideals of a liberal arts education and the non-
existent job market for academics. Instead of "learning to think" and being
prepared for a fictional career in academia, you can learn to think and try to
apply those critical thinking skills toward making a tangible impact on the
world.

~~~
mindslight
In theory, theory and practice are equivalent. In practice, theory and
practice are quite different.

My engineering and computer science classes taught me more about "how to
think" than the liberal arts classes I took - those seemed to focus on
regurgitating facts or the professor's viewpoint. And I certainly didn't get
the impression that the in-major kids were doing anything different, just
better practiced regurgitation.

I think if "liberal arts" education were fulfilling its promise, it would have
long ago adopted programming (an unforgiving applied logic) as a core
component (scheme/haskell, not python). People in general _learn by example_ ,
while teachers (having already learned) tend to emphasize abstract models.
This is a great recipe for model precession, fostering an illusion of thinking
critically while being at the mercy of now-invisible built in assumptions.

~~~
WalterBright
The thing about liberal arts is it teaches you to argue any point of view,
right or wrong, with equal facility. With engineering, you cannot argue that
the rocket didn't blow up.

I.e. with engineering, reality is the check on the validity of your critical
thinking. With liberal arts, there is no such check.

~~~
mindslight
> _liberal arts ... teaches you to argue any point of view, right or wrong,
> with equal facility_

Is this really a _good_ thing? There are certainly plenty of things in this
world that are relative, unanswerable, or heuristics based on differing
utility functions. But arguments about those things should still be logically
_right_ , based on differing assumptions that are made explicit.

~~~
WalterBright
Let me put it another way. A science/engineering program teaches you the
scientific method, which is the best technique ever discovered for separating
truth from crap. That's a critical thinking skill that actually works.

As opposed to, say, arguing about who is a better President - Obama or Bush?
Liberal arts majors can argue that all day, and never be able to demonstrate a
thing to be true.

~~~
yaketysax
There is a lot more to political philosophy than "Is president X better than
president Y?". Moreover, who's claiming that something _has_ to be
demonstrated as true? You find no value whatsoever in discussing and
considering different axioms?

~~~
WalterBright
Discussing them is fine. How does one determine which axiom is correct?
Especially given that a skilled debater can persuasively argue either side?

Note that there have been many scientific theories that were debated
persuasively, reasonably, and logically, until someone applied the scientific
method and proved one side correct and the other false.

------
bicknergseng
>“Why would you spend a quarter of a million dollars and four years to learn
to code in Python?”

He's right. That is insane. But so is spending $27,950/year for 5+ years to
"be taught how to think." Coupled with their absurd acceptance rate, I've
gotta agree with the other comments that point out that they simply recruited
brilliant kids who were already independent thinkers.

Reminds me of a Department of Labor(?) study that concludes that ~80% of
people can do a job if you tell them what to do, show them how to do it, and
manage their progress, ~15% of people are able to do a job if you tell them
what to do, and <5% of people are able to figure out what needs to be done and
do it. Cool, Minerva, you might have some "success" by finding people who are
already capable of doing what you say you do for them.

~~~
crpatino
>“Why would you spend a quarter of a million dollars and four years to learn
to code in Python?”

The "learning to code in Python" part qualifies you to earn in the ballpark of
$125K USD per year, on average, over a career that will last ~42 years. ROI is
2 years (after graduation), capital will last literally for a lifetime. What's
not to like?

The "quarter of a million dollars" part will give you the opportunity to know
and make friends with people that can pay that kind of money out of pocket
(not like you, middle class boy, who had to take a lot of debt for the
privilege). Those friends will open doors to you and apply a multiplier factor
to the baseline scenario ($125K per year). Best case, they will be your co-
founders in a multi-million acquisition event. Worst case, you do not do any
friends and coat-tail in the fame of your institution (with multiplier factor
between 0.9 and 1.5)

~~~
codyb
That's a very optimistic view on the situation considering that average pay of
a "Computer Programmer" is just under 80,000 [0]. IT Managers are closer
towards your ballpark at just under 130,000 according to the same source.

Also your ROI assumes you have no expenses at all for those two years?

There is a lot not to like about being a quarter million dollars in debt at
the age of 22. Especially since the majority of programmers who graduate from
these colleges come out and make between 60-80 for years and many never reach
125,000. Especially when you consider trying to pay for rent, food, bills,
loans, and living all at once.

And while the number of graduates who go on to have a multi-million dollar
acquisition event is undoubtably higher than most professions, it is still a
statistically insignificant percentage much like kids in college hoping to
play football for the rest of their days.

Personally I'd take critical thinking skills over any specialized set of
skills any day. Because those are the kind of skills that can improve all
areas of my life, not just the financial aspect.

The fact that, as a society, we can routinely saddle 22 year olds with tens
and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for the chance to get a higher
education is deeply troubling to me.

[0] - [http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-
programme...](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-
programmer/salary)

~~~
crpatino
All your points are worthy, and up to a point I agree.

You are also right about my model, my ROI is probably flawed. I think the main
flaw, though, is not lack of "expenses" but lack of a cost of opportunity
analysis which explores what happens if you go find yourself any job available
after completing high school.

Still, I'd challenge the idea that $80K is the average salary we should care
about. First, I am talking about lifelong average, not starting salary.

Second, since we are talking about a "quarter of million dollar education", I
assumed it is an elite program we are talking about. This means their alumni
will tend to get better results, in part because of the quality of the program
itself... but also in (a big) part because of the enhanced opportunities
available to their graduates.

Or maybe I am out of touch with the cost of a university degree in the US. If
this is the cost for a typical program, then my point was indeed optimistic.

~~~
codyb
According to the U.S. government the average cost for all private universities
in the United states is around 33,000. Up from an average of 18,000 dollars in
1981. Luckily, while public universities have also doubled their tuition
averages, they're a meager (in comparison) average of around 18,000 dollars
[0]. So on average, if you're paying on your own futures dime you're looking
at 64,000 - 132,000 dollars you have to pay, plus accrued interest, after
taxes come from your wages, before you can do anything like consider buying a
home to live in.

It's not a quarter of a million dollars, but it's still a house in many areas
of the country, and a ton of money to pay off. And lets not forget the vast
majority of majors do not have anywhere near the demand Computer Scientists
enjoy.

It is an extremely short sighted course of action for our nation to not curb
ever increasing tuition costs. The future is going to consist of a huge
portion of our population either without a higher education due to the
preventative and egregious costs of obtaining one; or struggling under a
mountain load of debt which continually accrues interest, doesn't disappear
with bankruptcy, and prevents those burdened as such from achieving stability
through real estate purchases and retirement saving accruement. In my eyes,
this will only result in losses on the world stage as our debt ridden and
undereducated populace stops producing the types of environments which
engender creativity and spur creation.

[0] -
[http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76)

------
colbyh
I'm a little put off by some of the wording here. In talking with Ben and JK
early on they were really against Stanford and Harvard's "no better than
chance" acceptance rate and wanted to build a system where anyone smart enough
to get in should be able to learn at Minerva. Their idea of online learning
was that it should enable higher bandwidth, not less.

Then Wired writes this: "...it’s highly exclusive, boasting a 2.8 percent
acceptance rate, which is lower than even Harvard or Stanford."

It's entirely possible that Wired printed that line without Minerva's blessing
and that Minerva's acceptance rate at the moment is simply a consequence of
their very small trial class (which is a great idea, not trying to knock their
approach).

I'd be really bummed to see Minerva changing their vision and trying to be
more exclusive than inclusive. I'm just hoping it's a slip of the tongue on an
editor's part and not a reflection of where Ben && company want to go with
Minerva.

~~~
michaelochurch
_I 'd be really bummed to see Minerva changing their vision and trying to be
more exclusive than inclusive._

The market value of an elite education is the very fact that it's exclusive.
That's why the connections are so valuable and the seal-of-approval means so
much on the job market. And that payoff is what justifies the quarter-million-
dollar (actually, closer to $140-180k) price tag.

This is not a comment in favor of, or against, Minerva. However, the truth is
that our society doesn't really value critical thinking, education or culture.
It values money and power and social access. That's why colleges can charge
such high tuitions, it's why "disrupting" the current model is impossible, and
it's why the quality of education you get, even if you go to Harvard, is good
only if you're already self-motivated when you enter the place. (You can learn
a lot at an elite school, but no one forces you to do so. That's equally true
of non-elite schools.) I think ed-tech is doomed to underperform because most
of these companies don't understand what's actually behind the problem. It's
deep and sociological, and (to use someone else's phrase) the problem has its
act together.

~~~
colbyh
The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual
education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any
other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be
let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year
that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small
number of spots available.

In that way, it should be possible to have an exclusive AND comparatively
large program churning out top-tier students. Pessimism aside, you won't know
if something like this will work in the market until you actually try it.

Don't really feel like tackling the bigger socio-economic issues you brought
up, but I think we more or less disagree on "society's" value structure and
what to make of it. I think a big change is in order, and I'm really hoping
Minerva can be part of that change.

~~~
michaelochurch
_The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual
education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any
other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be
let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year
that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small
number of spots available._

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification, and I hope you
succeed with what you're trying to do.

------
lazyant
"(Minerva) it’s highly exclusive, boasting a 2.8 percent acceptance rate", you
can stop reading here. Quality in, quality out, you can bring in brilliant
motivated kids and have them do literally almost anything and at after 4 years
or whatever they'll (still) be relativity great.

------
Alex3917
Of course most research shows that it's not actually possible to teach
critical thinking, but when has reality ever gotten in the way of venture
capital.

[http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thi...](http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thinking.pdf)

------
adam419
I found one of the article comments particularly funny and noteworthy:

"Question: How do you convince investors that you can teach critical thinking
skills? Answer: Screen for students that already have those skills."

Put the %2.8 acceptance rate in an interesting light.

Anyways I think this is interesting and valuable if for any reason that it's a
new, and different idea and some lessons of value may stem from it.

What I liked the most was the 2 year "Go do something novel" task. I think the
most valuable form of education comes from attempting to do something non-
trivial and more focus on that is interesting.

------
pessimizer
I deeply believe in this. Classes on formal logic and _formal_ induction,
cause and effect, Mill's methods; that's a path to creating a better world
rather than just better consumers and wage laborers. Basic reasoning skills
are difficult to come by, whether you're looking to learn them or hire them.

------
nevergetenglish
"in a world where information is never more than a click away"

May I wonder which world is this? You can't access information if you don't
have the mental framework to process it. For example, where is the one click
to get the information about the concept of Monad in Haskell?

The only way you could access to information in an structured way is the way
in which University teach concepts. As another example there is not royal way
to Maths, how are you going to get the one click to the concept of
diffeomorphism if don't know about the hierarchical structure necessary to
define that concept.

Is a very big lie, and a great disservice to students to claim that there is
one click to information. The real way to obtain information is to be helped
with those that can give you some clues to construct the required mental
framework to be able to get information by reading a good book and not by
pressing the left button of your mouse.

~~~
yaketysax
"The only way you could access to information in an structured way is the way
in which University teach concepts."

"The real way to obtain information is to be helped with those that can give
you some clues to construct the required mental framework"

"how are you going to get the one click to the concept of diffeomorphism if
don't know about the hierarchical structure necessary to define that concept."

Um, you do further reading online or in a textbook until you understand the
things you don't understand. Of course some ideas require context. Why do you
believe people can't develop that mental context on their own?

~~~
nevergetenglish
In many fields of science is so difficult to get to some core concepts that
IMHO you will surrender before getting to the essence of it. There can be
exceptions with high performing people, but for example Einstein spent seven
years with Minkowki trying to develop the concepts necessary to formulate his
theory in the language of differential geometry.

------
cSoze
I don't really agree with the proposition that a university degree has
anything to do with or should have anything to do with critical thinking
skills. A university degree simply implies intimacy with the existing
knowledge in a field. This notion that because information is available you
don't need to expend effort learning it and you will be just as effective is
counter productive as well.

------
gschiller
Ironically, the founder went to Wharton, the institution that is the
embodiment of the exact opposite values of the university that he is founding.

~~~
stvswn
Wharton grad here -- I have to reply to your characterization. Wharton still
has a strong finance background, but we've also applied the same ideas towards
all disciplines where a quantitatively based, structured approach to problem
solving is useful. That's why many consider it a "quant school." I
specifically learned critical thinking there, and not anything that has helped
me in my job specifically (PM at a big tech company).

------
JoeAltmaier
More like leadership training, problem solving. There are many critical skills
beside job skills.

However ignoring job skills won't get you a job. It'll be a hard sell to get
their students hired, especially at any kind of specialty. There's just too
long of a runway for many things - art, law, medicine, chemistry, engineering.
What does that leave?

------
ovi256
So, if the classes are online, how long until the material leaks ? I for one
would love to look and try my hand at it.

~~~
enoch_r
I was pleasantly surprised to read[0] that Minerva is doing quite a bit more
than just taking the MOOC concept and charging for it, e.g.:

"He split us into groups to defend opposite propositions—that the cod had
disappeared because of overfishing, or that other factors were to blame. No
one needed to shuffle seats; Bonabeau just pushed a button, and the students
in the other group vanished from my screen, leaving my three fellow debaters
and me to plan, using a shared bulletin board on which we could record our
ideas. Bonabeau bounced between the two groups to offer advice as we worked."

More like that at the link. So despite being online, it sounds like Minerva's
trying to increase, not decrease, the amount of educator/student interaction
involved.

[0] [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-
futu...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-future-of-
college/375071/)

------
mesozoic
As someone on the job market right now I can say skills is all that companies
seem to care about at all.

------
tokenadult
The article reports, "Minerva toys with the notion that in a world where
information is never more than a click away, what matters most is not what you
know off the top of your head, but how you analyze and interpret everything
you learn. And so, the school takes a hard stance against teaching hard
skills." And that tells me that the program founders need to learn more hard
facts themselves about the failure of efforts to teach thinking skills without
also teaching content about the real world. Critical thinking requires deep
knowledge of a factual domain.[1] Knowledge is important: it speeds and
strengthens reading comprehension, learning, and thinking.[2] There are good
books about critical thinking in general,[3] but the best of those books only
have a lot of influence on the thinking of readers who are well informed with
facts when they read the books. If the Minerva Project doesn't do something on
campus to make sure that the learners are gaining knowledge of the world as
they participate, the project is doomed to failure.

The article also reports, "Its students take all their classes online, and
after their first year in California, they spend each semester in a new
country of their choosing." This I call burying the lede. That's the really
interesting and educational aspect of this program. If the students are funded
to study abroad, moving from country to country as they go through the
program, the program cannot help but be educational. Living in another country
can't help but get a learner unstuck from the learner's earlier prejudices.
"The whole object of travel is not to set foot on foreign land; it is at last
to set foot on one's own country as a foreign land."[4] What I learned from
living overseas is that there are a lot of things people think that they just
know from observation of the world that people with other cultural backgrounds
do not assume to be true, and people from different cultural backgrounds often
talk past one another until they examine their hidden "factual" assumptions
about how the world works. Getting a group of learners to go all over the
world while learning sounds like a very productive idea for a better
education.

On the whole, it's good that the non-system of higher education in the United
States allows experimentation like this. The people who are running the
project aren't sure that they will produce graduates who end up getting jobs,
but they will try something new and different while they have funding and see
what happens.

[1]
[http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thi...](http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thinking.pdf)

[2] [http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-
educator/spring-2006/...](http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-
educator/spring-2006/how-knowledge-helps)

[3]
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0078038367/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0078038367/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Folly-Fools-Logic-Deceit-Self-
Deceptio...](http://www.amazon.com/Folly-Fools-Logic-Deceit-Self-
Deception/dp/0465085970/)

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology-
ebook/dp/B001UE6T46/)

[4] G. K. Chesterton, "The Riddle Of The Ivy"
[http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20697/](http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20697/)

------
lumberjack
If the rest of the world manages just fine with the current education model,
then maybe the solution does not lie in revolutionizing the education model.

~~~
crpatino
Well, it has to be said. The rest of the world is pretty firmly for the idea
that advanced education _is_ professionalization (aka. practical skills
training). The "critical thinking" idea is given lip service, but rarely taken
seriously outside of US/UK.

------
RTesla
I wasted a lot of time in college.

------
innguest
FTFA:

> Teaching students how to think is a fuzzy, amorphous idea. And so [they]
> crafted a [...] list of [...] "habits of mind and foundational concepts"
> that they want every student to learn in their first year. There are 129 of
> them.

I'd pay just to have that list. That list would be a huge source of
constructive discussion around how to teach critical thinking skills.

------
notastartup
It taught me a dangerous way to think, to view the world as efficient,
logical, rational, infallible.

