
In a World Shaped by College Dropouts, Education is the Next Bubble - kevin_morrill
http://refer.ly/in_a_world_shaped_by_college_dropouts__education_is_the_next_bubble/c/181e0c4268d911e2bfbf22000a1db8fa
======
_delirium
The post does quote one popular statistics aphorism, "correlation is not
causation", but is sorely in need of another of them, "the plural of
'anecdote' is not 'data'". There are interesting arguments for or against
college, but a list of a handful of successful college dropouts is not one of
the better arguments.

~~~
randomdata
I don't see it that way. Anecdotes are not data, certainly, but the article
really only uses those anecdotes to disprove the premise that education ==
success. Anecdotes are more than sufficient to accomplish that. Just one
success story would have been enough.

He does go on to question if a degree could even be a liability, but I would
suggest that the wording acknowledges that he doesn't have sufficient data to
form any hard conclusions. I didn't take it as an argument, just a tangent on
something that would be interesting to measure in the future that relates to
the rest of the story.

~~~
_delirium
Sure, anecdotes do prove the point that it's _possible_ to have success
without education. But there have always been examples here and there; even
outside of tech, you could become the next Keith Richards. It's just not very
likely.

I think it's possible things are shifting (at least in tech, probably not as
much in other areas) so that college degrees aren't as big a benefit, but a
handful of extreme successes aren't where you'd find evidence of that.

~~~
randomdata
Mind you, success (depending on how you define it) is not very likely,
regardless of your background. 95% of the population in North America earn
less than $80K per year. A decent income at the high end, but not what most
people consider successful. Looking closer at the numbers, the top 1% is
comprised of 27% without a degree and 24% with a non-graduate degree. That
seems indicate to me that there is no real benefit to having a "plain old"
degree with regards to success at all.

The remaining 49% have a post-graduate degree. This indicates that there may
be some merit to pursuing post-graduate studies. However, we already know that
most JD and MD graduates generally make 1% incomes due to market protections
associated with that education, so it is not clear if any old post-graduate
degree would also put you at the same level. Unfortunately, the data that I
have access to does not break it down any further.

The numbers most certainly demonstrate a correlation with education and
achievement in work, but the variability between people is so wide the numbers
are basically meaningless with respect to any common interpretations. So far,
I have not found any compelling argument for a college education in this
context (there are a million other good reasons, of course), outside of areas
where legal protections exist. If you dream is to be a doctor then a college
education is a must, obviously, but it is not so clear cut for the common man.

------
brennenHN
While I agree that education is going to change fundamentally over the course
of our lives, this article represents both a misunderstanding of the housing
bubble and the likely path of education in our country.

Our community can be somewhat insular and we forget the incredible value that
higher education provides to the job market at large, and as unemployment
rates rise, the disparity grows and makes education more valuable, not less.

I had hoped this would be an article about the practice of selling bad student
debt (debt from dropouts unlikely to pay it back) as a way to get around new
regulations. Instead it listed the same, tired list of famous people who
dropped out of college. We all know their names and most of us also know that
the vast majority of successful entrepreneurs have at least their bachelors
degrees, and that a huge percent also have masters or phds.

~~~
randomdata
" _Our community can be somewhat insular and we forget the incredible value
that higher education provides to the job market at large, and as unemployment
rates rise, the disparity grows and makes education more valuable, not less._
"

Unemployment rates (or levels of income, for that matter) by education
attainment are not particularly interesting, in my opinion. People who are
smart and motivated generally go to college, so it is difficult to measure
them against smart and motivated people who did not go to college.

------
codex
Argh, more bait from refer.ly founders. The refer.ly modus operandi seems to
be:

a) write evergreen content that HN users are likely to upvote or read (HN
catnip) based on current HN trends

b) fill content with paid referral links

c) post catnip to HN

~~~
dmor
you missed two crucial steps:

d) figure out what readers want and extend to 1000s of online communities

e) profit

How would you suggest starting a massively distributed publishing business
with no ads?

~~~
azifali
I think YC is a wrong place to send in referral links unless of course data
proves it otherwise.

At least I am glad it isn't one of those "my mom started to work from home"
ads :)

------
venomsnake
Or maybe these "dropouts" were so smart and business apt that the educational
system was holding them back.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html>

I have the luck of having IQ in the low 150s, I have barely had the need to to
ever study. I can make up all the formulas, proof and laws needed for math,
physics,chemistry on the fly. And these guys - they have way more raw
brainpower than me, and some of them dumb luck. I suppose the Bill Gates was
even more bored back in the time without lolcats to waste his time on.

So unless you can read 500 pages of detailed excel spec, understand and follow
the IDispatch and COM while keeping the whole of the previous versions of
excel quirks in your head in a few hours - don't drop out.

Of course the question why college is so expensive, while in the rest of the
world is affordable is another thing.

~~~
kelnos
Agreed. Most articles that try to make the argument "these great successes
dropped out of college, so college is superfluous" fail to recognize that
these great successes are unusual people. Whether that means they were much
smarter than their peers, were more tenacious or hard-working, or just ended
up at the right place at the right time, these stories are _not common_.

By all means, if you're a Gates, Zuckerburg, Carmack, Ford... drop out of
college and do your own thing. But for every one of those, there are scores of
people who would fail hard, to their extreme detriment, if they followed that
path.

------
mtalantikite
Just want to point out that all of your examples are white men.

Higher education is still a great way for those who don't already have every
door open to them to advance in the world.

~~~
nathos
Not exactly what you're talking about, but you reminded me of this study I
came across a few days ago:
[http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/unseen_disadvantage...](http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/unseen_disadvantage.htm)

------
vsbuffalo
But employers use diplomas as a signal[0]. The increases in the number of
college graduates only further necessitates that smart people require one for
signaling their productivity.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)> Search for
"sheepskin"

~~~
yarianluis
From your link:

"The informational value of the credential comes from the fact that the
employer assumes it is positively correlated with having greater ability."

An often-cited reason why a lot of recent college-grads are without jobs is
that they are not actually prepared for real work.

As the number of people graduate college, the meaning of a degree lessens. If
everyone has one, then it stops meaning as much.

------
elliott99
What if someone, like, wants to become a doctor, needs to learn pre-medical
subjects? Self-study is better?

~~~
barry-cotter
US medical education is provably inefficient. You can take a sufficiently
intelligent 17 year old and give them a top notch medical education in five
years. In Ireland and the UK Medicine is an undergraduate degree and takes
five or six years depending on the university. If you got rid of summers off
you could do it very comfortably in four. Making medicine a second entry
degree is a giant waste of social resources.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Wait, I thought the college was irrelevant? Why can't the brilliant 17 year
old just read blog posts or whatever people who propose these positions think?

Anyway, I'm going to address a different issue. ... You really think you take
a 17 year old straight out of high school level education and in four years
they are a medical doctor? That's interesting ...

~~~
barry-cotter
As much as someone just out of med school, yes. At an absolute bare minimum
you still need to do your internship for a year before you can practice.

On your first point; most people don't use most of what they learn in college
once they leave it. This is substantially less true of medicine than many
other fields. At the same time most doctors do a pretty thorough job of
forgetting math and physics and a reasonable job of forgetting chemistry.

------
pasbesoin
Ok, in a nutshell: There were useful things for me to learn in college. But,
for me, it was _incredibly_ inefficient.

In part, due to my own shortcomings. But... as part of a college career and
education, I would expect some significant guidance. And, in addition to
everything else, that was rather completely lacking, in my own experience.

To use the TL;DR meme: College is the new high school.

(Only, our society can't support four more years of high school. And so the
system is now rapidly breaking down.)

------
robryan
As an aside, is it correct that John Carmack is a billionaire?

------
snoonan
Selling most academic learning in a physical space makes about as much sense
as selling information printed on paper.

~~~
drakeandrews
I like my books, thank you very much. I've never felt fearful over my safety
reading a book on the train. I've never had the sudden urge to put a book away
lest someone try and take it from me. And it is still orders of magnitude
easier for me to lend someone a book than it is to (legally) give them a copy
of one of the many ebooks I own for a while.

In addition, I am currently at a (supposedly) top university in London.
Everything in my lectures I could adequately teach myself with the books on
the course, Wikipedia and Wolfram Mathworld. This isn't why I'm paying ten
thousand pounds a year (roughly, including living costs). I'm paying ten
thousand pounds a year to get an excuse to be around smart people my age for
three years in London. I've met so many brilliant people in my time here and
despite a brief period where I was almost committed to dropping out I
ultimately decided otherwise (partly because I'd already sunk eighteen months
and twenty thousand pounds into it, partly because completing it would only be
another eighteen months and another ten thousand pounds plus a degree whose
value may be questionable but if anyone can point out any downsides,
considering the already large investment I've made, I'd be more than happy to
hear them). I'd get none of these upsides had I merely done a bunch of online
courses and read some books on maths and programming.

~~~
randomdata
I think your post accurately describes the problem with education today. I,
for one, hate paper with a passion. There is not one redeeming quality offered
by it, from my perspective. Obviously you take the exact opposite stance, and,
importantly, that doesn't make you wrong.

As you have illustrated here: Everyone is different, but our education system
only serves a subset of the population who fit that particular mould. We don't
need to destroy college, and in fact it is important to keep it alive, but we
need to recognize that it is not the only game in town. The computer didn't
eliminate paper, but it did give us choice. Choice, with recognition of
achievement, is what education desperately needs.

------
sonabinu
Why does it have to be a bubble, if there is new learning involved at minimal
cost? I feel it will just lead to a great disparity in learning amongst those
who have access to the internet and those who do not. Not to mention those who
are self-motivated and those who are not.

------
bossx
Without degrees there would be no employees to work at the dropout's
companies.

~~~
yarianluis
Unless you are trying to make a snarky remark about college-graduates being
taught how to work for someone else instead of run their own company--this is
not true.

It is not hard to imagine a society where work is more collaboration among
equals and less hierarchical. I.e. Valve Software.

------
noonespecial
I'm so sorry. I know its totally off topic, but I just can't read those first
three words in anything other than Don LaFontaine voice.

~~~
kevin_morrill
This Referly page may be right up your alley:
[https://refer.ly/the_men_behind_movie_trailers/c/aaf97926603...](https://refer.ly/the_men_behind_movie_trailers/c/aaf97926603b11e2b5ab22000a1db8fa)
The routine by Pablo Francisco makes me laugh every time.

On a more serious note, one of the gems in this page is the Art History series
called Civilisation by Kenneth Clark. PG recommended this guy in one of his
essays, and it's one of the best things I've watched all year. I feel like I
have such a better perspective on art now.

------
Evbn
In a world shaped by social media sites, blogspamming yesterday's HN topics is
the next bubble.

------
michaelochurch
The college tuition phenomenon is an example of a very _weird_ bubble. Of the
hundreds of well-studied economic bubbles, there isn't one quite like it. I'm
fairly comfortable saying that it's impossible to predict when it will go
down. It could happen next year, or not until 50 have passed.

We know that education _itself_ is of multi-trillion-dollar importance. It's
the difference between stagnation and growth and, for a society, progress and
failure. How people think influences what they do. By and large, most people
are underprepared for the problems and complexities of the future. People talk
about the Singularity and Strong AI but, if you've actually read some
corporate source code, you become a bit more pessimistic. 95% of paid
professional programmers can't even write shitty business apps well.

So that's Weird Thing #1 about this bubble. It involves something that
actually is very important-- not gold or tulip bulbs or stock in silly
companies.

Of course, you don't need to spend $160,000 on an elite college to get a
decent education. That gets to the _real_ reason people are paying so much.

We also know that social connections matter for personal position. It's a
zero-sum game and it's shitty that we have to play it, but if you don't get
the "who you know" game in order, then you can't make use of what you know,
and you become yet another bitter, smart underachiever. That's even more
miserable than being a regular, ignorant person.

That's Weird Thing #2 about this education bubble: it pertains to a social
need that many people feel intensely and experience bitterly. _If_ those Ivy
League colleges are delivering on connections, they're probably worth
$160,000. Which is why they get away with charging that much. They could
probably triple it, were it not for the image problems of drawing attention to
the socioeconomic issues. (They wouldn't actually make themselves unaffordable
at $120k per year, because they'd be offering a lot more financial aid except
to the very rich. However, putting the full-price level at that point _would_
draw negative secondary attention.)

The tuition bubble is about the social connections. Do not be deluded on this.
Education is a secondary concern in all that, especially when we're talking
about private pre-schools where the quality is ancillary: it's about the
"feeder" effect. How did degenerate connection-seeking get conflated with
education? We have a weird superego in our society that says that the best way
to spend ages 18-22 is to live in a way mirroring how the upper class wants to
perceive itself, as opposed to how it actually is (see Xoxohth for that,
because while most of its posters are not upper-class themselves, they have
U.S. upper class attitudes _down_ ). College, for most Americans, is this
period of making connections that involves courses because of that ghost of a
superego that says we're supposed to find those things important, especially
if we want to run the world. (The _actual_ people who run the world are
uneducated, ignorant garbage, but I'll step over that issue for now.)

MBA programs are more brazen about this. It's a regular thing for an MBA
professor to reschedule exams to accommodate student travel and social events.
Top MBAs are the only educational program (to my knowledge) where professors
are virtually required to accommodate students' social calendars.

So why is tuition high? Education _is_ important to society, even at those
ridiculous price levels. However, the price is mostly paid by the individual
(well, parents) and that is because of the connections.

I don't think anyone can predict how this will play out. Escalating economic
inequality increases the importance of social connections, which means that
more money is going to get sucked away in the search for them. Expensive,
reputable colleges are (a) the most socially acceptable way to turn money into
connections for young people, and (b) a socially acceptable way to transfer
wealth across generations. That isn't going to fade out just because we've
found better ways of disseminating information on the Internet.

Don't get me wrong: online education is going to be quite powerful, and we're
going to see some awesome progress in the next decade or two, but this
extremely profitable (for some institutions) pattern of social-connection
seeking is not going to disappear just yet.

~~~
SatvikBeri
_We also know that social connections matter for personal position. It's a
zero-sum game and it's shitty that we have to play it, but if you don't get
the "who you know" game in order, then you can't make use of what you know,
and you become yet another bitter, smart underachiever._

To clarify-there's capital-C Connections, which have to do with old money and
social status, and these are destructive. There are also lowercase-c
connections, which is basically knowing people or having friends, and these
are a major positive. Without knowing anyone the work you produce will
actually be of lesser value, because you may end up doing something no one
cares about really well.

As an example, I got into Machine Learning through connections about 2 years
ago. If I hadn't known anyone I might have spent a lot of time trying to break
into classical AI, I-banking, or programming. Instead I knew that Machine
Learning was becoming more and more important, so I was able to focus my
energy on learning that as opposed to, say, C++.

~~~
michaelochurch
This is a really strong point. When we talk about "Connections", we're
actually often talking about information flow.

Capital-C Connections are about the ability to advertise oneself to a set of
parasitic people with disproportionate power. As the world wakes up to this
emperor having no clothes, this is becoming less important. Look at Mitt
Romney's amazement at the fact people who scoff about the "47%" in private (in
a world with smart phones and the Internet) can't get elected.

That's a push-driven information flow that exists in a time of scarcity. One
has to advertise oneself to the few people who are in power. That has been the
dominant world for centuries.

However, as we move into an era where talent, skill, and know-how are the
scarce resources, the more important information flow is pull-driven. The game
for an ambitious person is more about finding things out-- what's worth
learning, what to work on. So you win by pulling down the best information,
not by pushing (low-quality, biased) information about oneself into the
streams of others.

