The issue with this policy is hyperbolic discounting — students are fine choosing not to do homework when the consequences (EDIT: that is, doing poorly on the exam) are still in the future, but less so when they become present.
Then they lash out at the instructor, even if it’s really their fault.
>> In-class exams, either written or oral. If you don't do homework, it is only on you. And with paper and pen, the next semester, yes.
> The issue with this policy is hyperbolic discounting — students are fine choosing not to do homework when the consequences are still in the future, but less so when they become present.
For me at least, in most of my classes, the homework was a tiny part of the grade. Just enough to maybe get over what you're talking about, but not enough to really matter.
Maybe it's changed, but when I went to Berkeley, it was really common that the homework counted for next to nothing and it was on you to do it since the majority of your grade (if not all) was on mid-terms and finals. No one really complained back then...maybe it's changed a lot, but if so, I'd say they should go back to their roots ;)
True. It was true when I was doing my classes and I have to imagine it did not get much better. And with math, there is very easy way to tell if you are anywhere close to understanding it.
In high school math ,we usually had a stanupin the beginning of every lesson. Basically th entire class on their feet answering rapid fire questions from the teacher , usually some stuff that had been taught in the previous lesson. No calculator/notes just doing math in your head to get to sit down and start the class.
Gnereally sucked when we were going through it , looking back though made digesting the material easier as you had to know, not just cram or hope for a calc or scrap paper to caluclate with.
So basically a oral pop quiz for math. i think could work well to complement homeworks by making sure the material as taught is actually inside the students heads.
That is not the point of the article, though. He posits AI will just do better than humans soon, and he no longer knows whether people should even study math (from the article). So the point is that pursuing those studies is no longer useful; how or whether you grade is irrelevant at that point. (To be clear, I am not defending the statement, just explaining what I understood.)
I heartily disagree, grading hand-written homework serves as an early warning signal to students who don’t understand a concept* but want to. It’s also useful to keeners who like being told "you’re doing a good job, keep it up!" As well a warning to students who are so far behind that they can save time money and their GPA by dropping the class early.
And as a TA, I liked the income, and there’s a knock-on benefit that you’re learning to read with a critical eye which will help as a reviewer in the future.
* or in mine own obsolescent field, a measure of accuracy that indicates a student need think** longer before writing in the future
I recently attended a "flipped classroom" for an anatomy course. Lectures were recorded and done prior to class as (not-for-credit) homework, and the traditional homework was ungraded, done in groups in place of lecture. Labs were essentially just mini practicals with multiple stations.
I had never taken an anatomy course prior, and thought that the flipped classroom worked very well for the younger students. People who hadn't quite developed the knack for studying were now forced into preparing before class, and active recall was embedded into the lab practicals so that the cumulative exam wasn't testing things they'd memorized and forgotten.
For me personally, as a student, homework has only ever been for grade-padding.
Sure, so mark it up, just don't grade it or count its completion in a way such that it counts toward final rankings vs other students. Offer your TA's services to those who want to use it to improve, not to evaluate their AI's output.
With some exceptions I think higher education should probably go back to being about academia and not necessarily teaching skills for industry. I think companies can now easily invest in their own extended training and grab people out of high school. Just a thought.
> With some exceptions I think higher education should probably go back to being about academia and not necessarily teaching skills for industry. I think companies can now easily invest in their own extended training and grab people out of high school. Just a thought.
They'll probably just shut it all down.
With AI, what's the ROI on educating the masses? Paying specialist academics to know things? Just leave them dumb and let save the rich some tax money. Dumb people are easier to control anyway.
On research: If some tech bro can't do the research in an afternoon with an agent, it's not worth doing at all, let alone worth paying a PhD for a tenured lifetime job to do.
> If some tech bro can't do the research in an afternoon with an agent, it's not worth doing at all, let alone worth paying a PhD for a tenured lifetime job to do.
The OpenAI math dump showed that it’s not worth paying hundreds of PhD-years if a tech bro can do it with an agent.
The idea is AI is cheap enough and worth it for a company to invest in younger talent that will learn the specifics of the industry much faster. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, maybe university is reduced by 2 years or something.
> With AI, what's the ROI on educating the masses? Paying specialist academics to know things? Just leave them dumb and let save the rich some tax money. Dumb people are easier to control anyway
The generation of Americans that went to the moon had only 5-8% of people go to college. Whether someone is smart or dumb has little to do with formal higher education.
You neo-liberals have been wrong about this for 40 years now. You wrought us all with your Reaganomics, and have had the full attention of every government for this entire time (except maybe in Cuba) and the results have been truly disastrous, climate catastrophe and all.
If private enterprise was really this efficient, and government was really that inefficient, we should have seen ample evidence for that by now. The fact that we haven’t is proof that the promises of neo-liberalism are all lies.
>If private enterprise was really this efficient, and government was really that inefficient, we should have seen ample evidence for that by now
There's a wealth of clear evidence for this in the economic data in Eastern vs Western Europe, East Germany vs West Germany when Eastern Europe was under Soviet rule. The countries under Soviet rule were significantly poorer and to this day most still haven't caught up with their Western European counterparts.
Eastern Europe underwent shock therapy and are today in many ways more extreme in neo-liberal policies then the western part of the same continent.
Western Europe didn’t start neo-liberal policies until after the cold war ended, and it went into full gear around the year 2000.
In either case. Is garbage disposal in Europe so much more efficient now that it has all been privatized, compared to the mid-90s? Are trains running cheaper? Is power transmission cheaper now that energy generation, and delivery have been split apart and sold to private investors on the public stock market?
No, the answer to all these questions are no. Because efficiencies in a system don‘t care about the ownership model, and neo-liberalism is a religious like creed that operates out of idealism for a world that does not exist.
> is garbage disposal in Europe so much more efficient now that it has all been privatized, compared to the mid-90s?
Is it?
> Are trains running cheaper?
They're up about 6% in real terms (or about 0.23% a year) since 2000 [1]. That said, I don't think most European rail is privatized, so this is a strange example.
Yes and no. Garbage disposal is more efficient now then it was in the mid-90s, but that has everything to do with the infrastructure and nothing to do with the ownership model. More on that later.
The ownership of infrastructure and the operation are split where private operators are allowed to compete with national operators on the same infrastructure. This is true for trains and electricity, and in some cases garbage disposal. Many of the national operators are publicly traded with the national government being the majority shareholder.
Some countries in Europe have gone much further in privatizing the rail network then others. The UK being the canonical example of privatization, and Norway being an example of a country privatizing more slowly.
If the promises of neo-liberalism were true, we should see the efficiencies gained in the UK compared to Norway. Yet, no such evidence exists. And that is because efficiencies correlate with the quality and the quantity of infrastructure, not the ideological policies that dictate the ownership of the operators.
> efficiencies correlate with the quality and the quantity of infrastructure, not the ideological policies that dictate the ownership of the operators
I mostly agree. Infrastructure quality (including institutional quality) dominates. Ideology is usually cover for a lack of evidence.
But ownership modes do create different incentive structures. Full private ownership is famously terrible in natural monopolies. It’s a well-known market failure and folks who proselytize fully privatized utilities are stupid or venal. For many other things, however, private ownership works. A good example is package delivery. (Train operation is a weird case. The UK fumbled. Italy did not. On the other end of the spectrum, DB is a trash fire.)
The thing is that the policy has been splitting off infrastructure from the operators, allowing competition of operators, and selling off shares of national operators. This policy is straight from the books of neo-liberalism, and it promised us greater efficiency.
My point is that these promises are lies. Neo-liberalism is a failed policy (yet it is the dominant policy among every single government in power today). And when GP claimed education was expensive because it is done by the government, I was here to call it out as another lie of neo-liberalism.
You may want to double-check your priors on the incentive structures.
For goods and services where demand is inelastic and the barrier for entry is high, the invisible hand will end up colluding to extract the most value possible (housing, utilities, groceries, healthcare). If the state does this, the ruling party starts catching strays and is eventually replaced. Of course, for the distinction to matter, you need to be able to meaningfully create new parties.
Your point stands for elastic demand, where you can choose to vote with your wallet (restaurants, vacations, gyms). Capitalism did a good job of adding to this list during its growth stage (transportation, entertainment, communications) but nowadays it's mostly established cartels that dominate all of the above in what appears to be a race to the bottom.
The incentives for package delivery are closer to the first category than the second though, since consumers end up with whatever company the supplier signed up with, thus mostly eliminating choice and reducing quality to the bare minimum required by the contract (not unlike the postal services).
Even when the customer gets to choose, the end results are still worse than vertical integration. Consider the food delivery apps that replaced most restaurants' in-house delivery teams: they have a direct interest to collude to keep prices high since they all earn the same no matter what restaurant you buy from, whereas for the individual restaurant it makes sense to throw in free delivery to get you buying from them.
I guess the biggest downside to private ownership is that it creates an incentive to have collusion service providers masquerading as adding value (realtors, brokers, speculators, resellers, risk managers, etc.) while providing plausible deniability to the state (which is of course responsible for its failure to regulate the incentive structure for these value-added services on a case-by-case basis).
> If private enterprise was really this efficient, and government was really that inefficient, we should have seen ample evidence for that by now.
Food. Consumer goods. Telecommunications services. Transportation. Clothes. All things that have gone down in absolute prices and relative amount of family income to be provided.
Education / Housing / Healthcare: all deemed "up to the State" and that takes increasingly more from people at ever diminishing returns.
We can have a long and serious conversation about how hard the Government should be involved in regulating these things, and how we could set up systems that ensure that these become universally available and not just for middle/upper class. We can even have a conversation about things that should be controlled by the Government even if it means a high cost to society. But to deny that things managed by the State are more expensive overall is a clear sign of ideological blindness.
The way to solve this is not by giving the monopoly back to the state, but by the state enacting regulations thay allows smaller players to join the grid.
Europe has been doing this for 20 years now. I have yet to see successful results. And realizing each failure of Neo-liberal policy Europe keeps doubling or quadrupling down. I believe they are on their 4th energy package at the moment. I am sure the fate if this 4th attempt will be identical to the other efforts of making capitalism fix the problem, and identical to any other neo-liberal policy. Europe will have more billionaires and peoples energy bills will be higher.
As the saying in Europe goes: Neo-liberalism will continue until the economy improves.
Do we have 20 years already since people are allowed to set up a solar panel in their backyard and sell excess capacity to the grid?
Do we have 20 years where farmers can grow their own biodiesel to (at least) power their own machinery, or does the state giving them subsidies to let them keep growing vegetables, wine and beef without having to compete in the global market?
We have had 20 years of energy distribution and infrastructure going from government ownership and into private hands, where different private distributors are allowed to compete for customers on the same grid. These were energy packages 1-2 (if I remember correctly). The results have been higher energy prices for European households.
Energy package 3 was supposed to fix this with some additional regulation and standardization. It did not. Energy package 4 is supposed to fix this with more standardization and regulations (including distributed generation; which I am in favor of btw.) however, it will not.
The problem is the privatizations of the 2000s, not in the regulations surrounding small scale solar. The problem is neo-liberalism. Get rid of corporations rent-seeking on our infrastructure. Our energy bills will not become lower until then.
> The results have been higher energy prices for European households.
Under state-owned infrastructure, you simply can never know the real cost of any of the services, because state-owned companies depend a lot more on subsidies that come from tax revenue than actual revenue from the service itself.
> Get rid of corporations rent-seeking on our infrastructure.
Get rid of corporations altogether. I firmly believe that any company (state owned or not) with more than 150 employees should be broken down.
I am guessing Germany or Europe more broadly. Germany is in a pretty bad neo-liberal wave right now, and have been getting worse for the past 10-15 years. And given Germany‘s influence in the EU the effects of this neo-liberal wave are felt across Europe, even in non-EU countries like Iceland (which is currently being fined by the EU for not privatizing garbage disposal fast enough).
However, if you look at the popular movements on the streets of Europe at the moment, you can see that the people are in fact not happy about this. There are very few political means of getting rid of neo-liberalism (see e.g. Spain for a clear example of what I mean) so people are turning to the streets as the only viable alternative.
It is expensive because it confers greatly enhanced earning potential. Students borrow against that future income. Sometimes from the state.
It confers enhanced future income largely because of the inherent vetting process that asures future employers this person is able to focus for extended periods of time on intellectual tasks, is able to follow through and function within a bureaucracy. I don't think it's as much about skills, at least it's way overkill for the skills that are actually needed on the job for most jobs.
I don't see the rise of LLMs as obviating the "functional cog in the Rube Goldberg machine" training.
It is also expensive because the debt is very hard to get erased through bankruptcy, so private companies are now offering more money to people than is actually needed. So universities see this $ and raise prices.
Kinda like how tax breaks on housing initially help people, and then the market adjusts based on the new inflow of $.
> Education/Training is only expensive because it is subsidized by the State.
reply
The death of apprenticeships is because you are training your own competition. It worked in the past because you trained your kid for a trade that was arcane and took a couple decades to master, but now you'd be training someone with no loyalty to you in a field that can be speed run in a year or so with YouTube assistance.
Zoho is a classics example of picking students at age 16/17, when they'd typically join a UG course, and instead train them on the job.
Some of the large tech service companies change incentives by tying a training fee ("bond") which is tied to some tenure (1-2 years). Departing before this would mean giving this back - which broadly incentives the planned tenure.
Other companies (musigma is an example) present pay as a 4 year package (10X), which is split 1/2/3/4X across 4 years.
I think the challenges US universities/companies are today facing is something India has needed for a couple decades now. I would not be surprised if many of these are tried in the US.
If you do plan - reach out to me, it's something I've wanted to expand into (currently run UG curriculums).
I don't understand where the premise comes from that higher education is doing this, or even has it as a goal.
To the extent it is I agree it should obviously be replaced by on the job training, because that will be much much better. But to me this is what's happening now anyway, de facto.
Even you do, say, a computer science degree which is one of the more obviously industry aligned fields you're still not really learning how to build software products or even useful software at all really except in the most mechanical sense.
You're learning a bunch of variously useful theory (in the sense that it could all be useful in principle but you won't know exactly for what and at what time until you're out building things in the world) and no company is ever going to be incentivised to introduce you this in a proper environment conducive to intellectual exploration separate from 'the job', because frankly you'll be long long gone by the time any of it pays off often decades hence.
> I don't understand where the premise comes from that higher education is doing this, or even has it as a goal.
They aren't the ones saying it. Parents, government officials and high school guidance counselors are telling everyone they need college to get a good job.
Colleges don't have to say anything thing about it but they raise their tuition abd accept the grant money while expanding their campuses to accommodate the rise in demand. That's exactly how a business would react to a growing market with rising demand and an influx of government money.
People pass through colleges on their way to getting a job and colleges oblige.
What op thinks colleges should be doing is accepting people who they think, with education, could contribute to the college's research fields. Think about the college tracks that lead to PhDs where the student stays with the university for some or all of their career. That's what OP is suggesting colleges become (or revert to, if that's what they ever were).
The software projects you work on as coursework just give you the shallowest possible mechanical introduction on how to put together working code, and their point is almost always to demostrate some underlying theory like networking or distributed systems or graphics or whatever has been understood. It's not to pretend to produce anything viable in a commercial sense or please any imagined customer or market.
Even the ones that are ostensibly under software engineering courses where you might even work in a group, it's about as far away from working on a real software project in a company with (or without) customers and capital on the line etc as can be imagined. Probably even open source would be a closer approximation / better practice at this.
And all of this is a good thing and is the point. It's a sandbox, for you to play around, mess up, 'waste time' and learn. No company is going to really give you this sandbox in the same way, nor should they. They're paying you, you're not paying them.
Maybe AI will be yet another disincentivized for higher education. When I was considering law school a decade ago, the overwhelming advices from existing attorneys was “unless you’re in the top 10% of the top 10% of universities, you’re wasting your time getting a law degree”. Seems very similar to university today (at least in the USA)
I've heard this argument over decades and to this day it doesn't make any sense to me. You know what happens when you do that ivory tower thing? Those professions die.
This is quite sad. Even if students would cheat off each other, someone had to do the homework. And even the collaboration of cheating on homework always served as a forcing function for me or others to think about the material. If not actively, at least in the form of a quasi background radiation. With AI that is completely gone, and without reward loops for incremental work, the truth is there is a large number of people (especially 18-20 year olds) who will not do well on the exams because they need a bit of a stick.
I am not saying this as a black and white statement. I just think there are different cohorts of students based on maturity and self motivation and we might be losing out on one cohort that is at neither extreme.
When I was young, public universities in Spain only evaluated the final exam. That was not a problem; it helped people become responsible. Nowadays, they have changed it to evaluate continuous homework, and students end up worse prepared.
Interesting. Honestly I think about this much more in a cohort way. There’s some cohort of students who are extremely self motivated and mature and understand the way you do one thing is kinda the way you do all things. There’s another cohort that is completely checked out or whose priorities are not grades at all. For these cohorts I don’t think it makes a big different.
But it’s hard for me to imagine that for the cohorts in between (who definitely want to be motivated) having some forcing function is just an easier guiding hand to helping them become responsible vs. completely bombing a class and then potentially losing hope or self identifying as lazy/helpless - which I had seen all too often to some of my smartest classmates.
Regardless not saying this to invalidate your experience. Just hasn’t lined up with mine.
Unfortunately the single final exam selects for lucky people. Did you learn the right thing? Are you healthy and well rested on the day? Can you perform under arbitrarily selected stressful conditions? Are your executive functions fine with that plan?
The responsibility part is just one element influencing the result.
>single final exam selects for lucky people. Did you learn the right thing? Are you healthy and well rested on the day?
If it's a well-designed course it should be clear what the content of the exam will be. If not, it's the professor's fault. And barring rare emergencies being rested on the day is also generally a matter of preparation, not luck.
It's clear what pool the content will be from. But it's impossible to check everything. Some people will get things they've practiced more, some the opposite. Unless you give out the full list of questions, there will be luck involved.
> barring rare emergencies
It doesn't have to be a rare emergency. Things happen, loud student parties happen, random bad nights happen.
> Some people will get things they've practiced more, some the opposite. Unless you give out the full list of questions, there will be luck involved.
In the case of calculus as an example, there should be nothing from the class you didn't have time to practice sufficiently. A full academic year is more than enough time to learn integrals, derivatives, sequences, and series with the small collection of tricks for solving difficult problems (telescoping series, trig sub, etc.) There's a couple dozen rules you learn that are straightforward to apply, and for the times they aren't obvious, there's like a dozen total tricks (trig sub, etc.).
I took these classes. I remember how most people just phoned in the entire thing and complained at the exam review sessions how hard everything was.
Your argument seems to imply that the only thing that an exam is possibly allowed to measure is ability to answer a question at some arbitrary point in time. It also separates the people with the wit to understand a bunch of topics in a span of 3 or 5 months, the ability to plan accordingly, enough self control, and some motivation to see the plan through from the ones that don't. That's not a bad thing, as diplomas are often used as a proxy not only for intelligence, but also for suitability to certain jobs.
The only thing I'm saying is that measuring once maximises the luck component. Sure, measure other things by proxy as well. But to borrow your phrase, understanding and taking into account the variability of real life behaviours, sampling noise and environment biases shows "not only intelligence, but also for suitability to certain jobs."
No, it doesn't. Repeating it ad infinitum does that.
But therefore it's a good thing grades aren't just pass or fail, but have a range, from 1 to 10, or to 20 or whatever. Too bad there's so much external pressure on the system.
Take a moment to think about it. Why does the confidence interval go smaller with more samples? What does it say about the impact of luck in repeated tests?
"You may bring one 8.5x11 double-sided cheat sheet into the exam. You may write anything you want on it. And I promise you that if you prepare such a sheet, you'll never even look at it during the exam."
I certainly find that now, going back to uni. In a couple of subjects we get the option to prepare a cheat sheet, and I would say I actually look at less than 10% of it. The act of preparing it forces me to revise, and internalise the facts and ideas.
Only if you were planning to scrape by. If you actually know the material (the thing the exam is supposed to determine), you should do fine, and any good or bad luck will tend to average out by the time you graduate. Besides, there really aren't any alternatives left. Completed homework had some weak-ish signal for a while, but now it doesn't.
Ultimately the goal of education shouldn't just be a filter but it should ensure that as many people as possible learn the material. Homework allows for early intervention by faculty to get people back on track. There really are students who end up succeeding after this intervention.
The solution is not to feed students from spoon all the time. They are adults and should act as such, it is not a school where it is really important to give every child a chance. Grading homework must be opt-in. Those who want it, get the grade as a feedback, can seek for help then and get the help, those who skip should be assumed prepared for final exam and judged by it. There are millions of people in the world who can use education opportunities to their maximum, and the place should not be reserved to those who feel entitled by whatever privilege they have.
We observe that intervention leads to more students learning. I don't believe that "well they are adults they can fail if they want" is an excuse for a university refusing to take steps that they know would improve pedagogy.
I do agree that AI has made this basically useless. Rather than skipping homeworks or doing a bad job the students just cheat and there is no opportunity to notice and intervene. They get all the way to the screen-free final and fail.
I do not think that controlling homework does improve pedagogy at scale. Homework helps engaged and motivated students who are ready to accept the feedback. Maybe in your place they are majority and effects are visible. As soon as grades for homework become the goal, the Goodhart‘s law starts playing the role in the dynamics of relationships between students and teachers. AI has nothing to do with it, cheating with homework did always exist.
As someone who tasted both education models, the US model of babysitting students for the first few years after high school is superior. Students coming in with relatively weak preparation are able to catch up to their better prepared peers within a couple years. At the junior (3rd year) level you can hardly tell the difference between the graduates of elite high schools and run of the mill public schools. I think the entry bar is much higher, and in many cases insurmountable, in Europe. It persists through the years so someone perfectly capable of developing the required discipline and chops has no chance if they didn't come from the right high school or high school track.
I began my undergraduate in 2020, so it was mostly online and my uni group had a discord server we all used.
I already knew how to program pretty well, so there were plenty of nights where I sat in discord and helped people debug their programs. I wouldn't share answers directly as the professors checked for identical and identical-with-renamed-identifiers. So the incentives were pretty well aligned for a collaboration where the students did learn something themselves.
I was incentivized to teach them stuff instead of just fixing their problems, and they were incentivized to learn too (so as not to be stuck dependent on me and my time), and for the most part they did.
It was also a very easy way for me as a not-very-social-teen to get integrated and accepted into the group. Not in a transactional way: "I helped you so you owe me". But rather in the sense that they had to give me a chance and they spent time with me in an environment where I was comfortable, which made it more natural for them to invite me to social situations where it would have been more difficult for me to go directly without knowing the people in advance.
And just like people came to me for programming advice, we went to another guy who really knew Math and Physics for those subjects, and so on.
Cheating always has been available as an option. AI just makes it faster. At Cal, you always had students who would still pursue doing things on their own even when not cheating led to lower grades. The reality of it all is that cheating catches up to you eventually and the later it does, the worse are the outcomes. If you cruised through high school by cheating, you’ll not survive college. If you cruised through college by cheating you’ll not survive your first job. If you cruised through your first job by cheating you’re not getting a promotion or a second one.
Half the class was cheating in Ion Stoica’s OS class even when the whole thing was supposed to be a group effort. Like how are you cheating when you’re already working in groups of 4?
> If you cruised through high school by cheating, you’ll not survive college. If you cruised through college by cheating you’ll not survive your first job. If you cruised through your first job by cheating you’re not getting a promotion or a second one.
Love the optimism, but if you really believe the universe is this fair then you’re too young, too naive or too inexperienced (or any combination therein). The world is absolutely full of people who have cruised through all of that but still manage to get (and maintain) good high paying jobs all the time. “Failing upwards” is a commonly observed phenomenon everywhere, in pretty much every industry.
Truth is: none of that matters in the real world. What matters is how good you are at networking and bullshitting your way through life. Unfortunately for those of us that are terrible at bullshitting, this means a harder professional life no matter how much effort you put into it.
I think you’re conflating too many things here. Never claimed that the universe is fair nor do I claim that failing upwards isn’t a thing.
If you think bullshiting and networking are the only things that matter, then I believe it’s your pessimism that’s talking.
In a class of 100, if 50 decide to learn things and 50 decide to complete assignments using AI without learning, I’m willing to put money behind the idea that more people in the first group will do better in life. Of course there will be exceptions because there’s a lot more in life beyond competence, including luck that influences outcomes.
I know you chose 50/50 arbitrarily. But I think the real numbers are much worse. A few years ago, I stayed a couple nights at a hostel in a rural spot in Italy. I’m in my 50s, and most of the others there were Americans in their 20s, fairly recent grads. A dozen of us went out to dinner one night, and among the topics discussed was cheating in college. Only myself and one of the younger people said we did not cheat, the others all treated it as an expected part of the college experience. This isn’t exactly “data”, and perhaps there’s some sort of correlation between hostel-goer and cheater, but I was shocked at the numbers. And that was before LLM usage was common.
My read is it's pre- versus post-social media college experiences. There have always been a number of cheaters. But their blast radius of normalization was limited to their roommate or maybe even dorm floor. With social media, a single cheater at a single school can enable and normalize the practice for millions.
Another angle on this is the tope that curriculum is so out of date your AI completed assignment may be ahead of the class subject matter. The real teacher is is having a motivation or need to do something and learning about what you need to learn to get the goal accomplished, AI can be a great companion for that journey, weeding out the sycophantic slop and getting to truth is the new challenge. There are a lot of elements to school that discourage curiosity (asking a stupid question in front of class) or being picked on for being a keener or other anti-intellectual "cool kid" mentalities. In the end we need to make the line between learning and success more obvious for young people, maybe that doesn't work when the definition of success includes fitting into a burocracy and letting the singing key be "4".
Students who need that kind of "stick" to do well on exams aren't college material in the first place. We have pushed far too many youths into college as the default option, and that hasn't been good for the students or the institutions.
There are plenty of people who have the innate intelligence and intellectual curiosity to succeed in college, but come out of high school lacking discipline and clueless about what they want to study. They would be better off spending a few years working or serving in the military or something to get their shit together first, and then enroll in college later. Those students tend to have clearer goals and take the educational experience more seriously.
> Students who need that kind of "stick" to do well on exams aren't college material in the first place
Well, that raises an interesting philosophical question. What sorts of learning patterns in a person make them "college material"?
Surely you agree that there are a wide variety of teaching styles present among all college professors. If a student's personal way of learning best is incompatible with their assigned professor, are they not college material? Why is this an issue with the student, and not the professor not being teaching material, or the university not being facilitator-of-education material for failing to match students and professors well?
I agree that people have been pushed into college as a default option due to it being overloaded as both place of learning but also printing salary-granting papers, but it's NOT clear to me that students who need the specific stick mentioned in some cases are broadly unsuited for higher learning.
It's about having to be externally motivated for that particular assignment. Or class of assignment, whatever.
There are often a variety of tasks which are graded. Homework, exams, presentations, labs, etc. Every class and professor sets the mix of valuation of these differently, and has different quantities of each. That's teaching style.
If you hate presentations and cannot be roused to make one except by threat of failure, but are great at learning the material and pass the exams with ease, then that's a teaching style incompatibility.
> What sorts of learning patterns in a person make them "college material"?
Any that are self motivated.
> If a student's personal way of learning best is incompatible with their assigned professor, are they not college material?
Honestly, no. It shows a lack of (a) institutional-navigational skills, e.g. change your professor, (b) flexibility to different learning "styles" (which are increasingly being shown to be a myth) and/or (c) ability to circumvent adversity, e.g. by reading the textbook, finding online videos or hunting down a study group. That doesn't mean they can't learn some of these skills. But if they don't have by them by the end of freshman year, college is a waste of time for them.
Modern college students are basically afforded the freedoms and privileges of a classical scholar with a wealthy patron. Their day-to-day needs are taken care of. They have access to massive libraries. They have access to lectures and professors at office hours. And they navigate all of it with a pre-selected cohort of similar students.
(To be clear, I think one can be tremendously successful and valuable without completing or even attending college. As in no ambitious path is actually closed off from you. Unless it's research.)
> That doesn't mean they can't learn some of these skills. But if they don't have by them by the end of freshman year, college is a waste of time for them.
I disagree, because muddling through one way or another grants the salary paper that makes it easier to have success in the rest of life.
> To be clear, I think one can be tremendously successful and valuable without completing or even attending college. As in no ambitious path is actually closed off from you. Unless it's research.
Again, I disagree.I mean, I agree on its face, in that a sufficiently motivated and capable person is capable of achieving success with or without a college degree.
But we're talking about people who aren't motivated and capable. The best path to something resembling success for people who lack the motivation and capability to be successful on their own, is to muddle through the university system and by whatever necessary means get the piece of paper.
College at large is not a waste of time for these people. Until the downstream society stops valuing a degree as it does, time spent getting the degree is not wasted, because it yielded the degree. If the paper is had, the time was well spent, regardless of how that time was actually spent or whether anything was learned.
> muddling through one way or another grants the salary paper that makes it easier to have success in the rest of life
True [1]. I'm not debating the individual incentives. (I wasn't clear about this earlier.) I'm just not convinced a college graduate who muddled through is worth 75% more to an employer or society than a high school grad who muddles.
> a sufficiently motivated and capable person is capable of achieving success with or without a college degree
For a binary measure of success, yes. A successful person empowered with a peaceful, rich society and challenging college experience will do better than one without.
In the real world, those on the bottom of the social hierarchy (such as undergrad students) need to adapt to the styles of those on the top (professors). Perhaps that's unfair but it's just the way the world operates. College can be a great environment to learn that essential life skill of adaptability. Find a way to succeed even when you're in a shitty environment surrounded by toxic people.
If we're talking about "the way the world operates", then because of how society values college degrees, any path that gets you the piece of paper is a worthwhile and valuable one. Whether that path involves learning, complaining until given a passing grade, or forcing/convincing your professors to accommodate your preferred style of "learning".
This is something that needs to be fixed downstream, by making the paper less valuable. Making the paper more difficult to get instead is just manufacturing misery because of people too stubborn to pull their heads out of the sand and admit that the function of undergrad is the salary paper, and self-motivated learning has been largely relegated to grad school.
Much of college is a social signaling mechanism. Well over a decade ago one of my family members, with a degree of shame had to explain to a friend why I didn’t finish my BA.
A lot of middle and upper class people use college as a way to filter people. You can argue our top universities also serve as finishing schools.
I did, after reaching six figures anyway, finish my BA. The shame is gone.
Or does it still linger as I went to a middle of the road state school. Not Stanford, Yale or even Berkeley.
Honestly I originally attended community college in part to get grant money/loans which allowed me to get a cheap apartment. As a bonus I meet a lot of cool people, read Howard Zinn.
Sure, there are fundamental questions about what college should really be for. Should the focus be on training competent employees or educating well-rounded citizens or anointing social elites or eliminating injustice or advancing the frontiers of human knowledge? Everyone seems to be coming to the debate with different unstated assumptions about that.
I did very poorly in school growing up. I think I failed at least 4-6 classes in middle/high school.
In college I did well and I'm now getting my masters in CS while working as a software engineer.
So, the 'stick' can certainly be useful. Doing poorly in high school is not necessarily an indicator of how you will do in college -- particularly if your life at home was turbulent as it was for me.
You missed the point. Some level of "stick" is appropriate and often necessary for children in middle/high school. But this article is about adults in college. If you get to college and still need the stick then it's probably not the right place for you.
The issue with this policy is hyperbolic discounting — students are fine choosing not to do homework when the consequences (EDIT: that is, doing poorly on the exam) are still in the future, but less so when they become present.
Then they lash out at the instructor, even if it’s really their fault.
> The issue with this policy is hyperbolic discounting — students are fine choosing not to do homework when the consequences are still in the future, but less so when they become present.
For me at least, in most of my classes, the homework was a tiny part of the grade. Just enough to maybe get over what you're talking about, but not enough to really matter.
Then an in-class oral exam on a random subject drawn at exam entry.
Works great in my country.
At the end of the day, the responsibility is on the student to study.
I'd put great value, as an employer, in a degree that does nothing but weed out these people.
So basically a oral pop quiz for math. i think could work well to complement homeworks by making sure the material as taught is actually inside the students heads.
In-class exams are anyway a proxy for grading homeworks, because those who don't do them will get lower grades.
This is only true for subjects where there is only one answer to a question.
Plagiarism in other subjects tends to show itself. But AI has made plagiarism more viable in all sorts of fields.
I did all my studies in France, and every single grade was ALWAYS for work done in class, regardless of the subject.
And as a TA, I liked the income, and there’s a knock-on benefit that you’re learning to read with a critical eye which will help as a reviewer in the future.
* or in mine own obsolescent field, a measure of accuracy that indicates a student need think** longer before writing in the future
** I know, I know
I had never taken an anatomy course prior, and thought that the flipped classroom worked very well for the younger students. People who hadn't quite developed the knack for studying were now forced into preparing before class, and active recall was embedded into the lab practicals so that the cumulative exam wasn't testing things they'd memorized and forgotten.
For me personally, as a student, homework has only ever been for grade-padding.
They'll probably just shut it all down.
With AI, what's the ROI on educating the masses? Paying specialist academics to know things? Just leave them dumb and let save the rich some tax money. Dumb people are easier to control anyway.
On research: If some tech bro can't do the research in an afternoon with an agent, it's not worth doing at all, let alone worth paying a PhD for a tenured lifetime job to do.
The OpenAI math dump showed that it’s not worth paying hundreds of PhD-years if a tech bro can do it with an agent.
The generation of Americans that went to the moon had only 5-8% of people go to college. Whether someone is smart or dumb has little to do with formal higher education.
Education is not subsidized only because it's a public good.
Much cheaper not to train anyone and let the state or pupil pay for training.
See lack of apprenticeships for a case of this.
If private enterprise was really this efficient, and government was really that inefficient, we should have seen ample evidence for that by now. The fact that we haven’t is proof that the promises of neo-liberalism are all lies.
There's a wealth of clear evidence for this in the economic data in Eastern vs Western Europe, East Germany vs West Germany when Eastern Europe was under Soviet rule. The countries under Soviet rule were significantly poorer and to this day most still haven't caught up with their Western European counterparts.
Western Europe didn’t start neo-liberal policies until after the cold war ended, and it went into full gear around the year 2000.
In either case. Is garbage disposal in Europe so much more efficient now that it has all been privatized, compared to the mid-90s? Are trains running cheaper? Is power transmission cheaper now that energy generation, and delivery have been split apart and sold to private investors on the public stock market?
No, the answer to all these questions are no. Because efficiencies in a system don‘t care about the ownership model, and neo-liberalism is a religious like creed that operates out of idealism for a world that does not exist.
You are picking the textbook example of a natural monopoly as a way to argue against how free markets don't work?
Is it?
> Are trains running cheaper?
They're up about 6% in real terms (or about 0.23% a year) since 2000 [1]. That said, I don't think most European rail is privatized, so this is a strange example.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/PRC_H... deflated with CP00
Yes and no. Garbage disposal is more efficient now then it was in the mid-90s, but that has everything to do with the infrastructure and nothing to do with the ownership model. More on that later.
The ownership of infrastructure and the operation are split where private operators are allowed to compete with national operators on the same infrastructure. This is true for trains and electricity, and in some cases garbage disposal. Many of the national operators are publicly traded with the national government being the majority shareholder.
Some countries in Europe have gone much further in privatizing the rail network then others. The UK being the canonical example of privatization, and Norway being an example of a country privatizing more slowly.
If the promises of neo-liberalism were true, we should see the efficiencies gained in the UK compared to Norway. Yet, no such evidence exists. And that is because efficiencies correlate with the quality and the quantity of infrastructure, not the ideological policies that dictate the ownership of the operators.
I mostly agree. Infrastructure quality (including institutional quality) dominates. Ideology is usually cover for a lack of evidence.
But ownership modes do create different incentive structures. Full private ownership is famously terrible in natural monopolies. It’s a well-known market failure and folks who proselytize fully privatized utilities are stupid or venal. For many other things, however, private ownership works. A good example is package delivery. (Train operation is a weird case. The UK fumbled. Italy did not. On the other end of the spectrum, DB is a trash fire.)
My point is that these promises are lies. Neo-liberalism is a failed policy (yet it is the dominant policy among every single government in power today). And when GP claimed education was expensive because it is done by the government, I was here to call it out as another lie of neo-liberalism.
Not what I said. Read again.
For goods and services where demand is inelastic and the barrier for entry is high, the invisible hand will end up colluding to extract the most value possible (housing, utilities, groceries, healthcare). If the state does this, the ruling party starts catching strays and is eventually replaced. Of course, for the distinction to matter, you need to be able to meaningfully create new parties.
Your point stands for elastic demand, where you can choose to vote with your wallet (restaurants, vacations, gyms). Capitalism did a good job of adding to this list during its growth stage (transportation, entertainment, communications) but nowadays it's mostly established cartels that dominate all of the above in what appears to be a race to the bottom.
The incentives for package delivery are closer to the first category than the second though, since consumers end up with whatever company the supplier signed up with, thus mostly eliminating choice and reducing quality to the bare minimum required by the contract (not unlike the postal services).
Even when the customer gets to choose, the end results are still worse than vertical integration. Consider the food delivery apps that replaced most restaurants' in-house delivery teams: they have a direct interest to collude to keep prices high since they all earn the same no matter what restaurant you buy from, whereas for the individual restaurant it makes sense to throw in free delivery to get you buying from them.
I guess the biggest downside to private ownership is that it creates an incentive to have collusion service providers masquerading as adding value (realtors, brokers, speculators, resellers, risk managers, etc.) while providing plausible deniability to the state (which is of course responsible for its failure to regulate the incentive structure for these value-added services on a case-by-case basis).
Food. Consumer goods. Telecommunications services. Transportation. Clothes. All things that have gone down in absolute prices and relative amount of family income to be provided.
Education / Housing / Healthcare: all deemed "up to the State" and that takes increasingly more from people at ever diminishing returns.
We can have a long and serious conversation about how hard the Government should be involved in regulating these things, and how we could set up systems that ensure that these become universally available and not just for middle/upper class. We can even have a conversation about things that should be controlled by the Government even if it means a high cost to society. But to deny that things managed by the State are more expensive overall is a clear sign of ideological blindness.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50208837
As the saying in Europe goes: Neo-liberalism will continue until the economy improves.
Do we have 20 years already since people are allowed to set up a solar panel in their backyard and sell excess capacity to the grid?
Do we have 20 years where farmers can grow their own biodiesel to (at least) power their own machinery, or does the state giving them subsidies to let them keep growing vegetables, wine and beef without having to compete in the global market?
Energy package 3 was supposed to fix this with some additional regulation and standardization. It did not. Energy package 4 is supposed to fix this with more standardization and regulations (including distributed generation; which I am in favor of btw.) however, it will not.
The problem is the privatizations of the 2000s, not in the regulations surrounding small scale solar. The problem is neo-liberalism. Get rid of corporations rent-seeking on our infrastructure. Our energy bills will not become lower until then.
Under state-owned infrastructure, you simply can never know the real cost of any of the services, because state-owned companies depend a lot more on subsidies that come from tax revenue than actual revenue from the service itself.
> Get rid of corporations rent-seeking on our infrastructure.
Get rid of corporations altogether. I firmly believe that any company (state owned or not) with more than 150 employees should be broken down.
However, if you look at the popular movements on the streets of Europe at the moment, you can see that the people are in fact not happy about this. There are very few political means of getting rid of neo-liberalism (see e.g. Spain for a clear example of what I mean) so people are turning to the streets as the only viable alternative.
It confers enhanced future income largely because of the inherent vetting process that asures future employers this person is able to focus for extended periods of time on intellectual tasks, is able to follow through and function within a bureaucracy. I don't think it's as much about skills, at least it's way overkill for the skills that are actually needed on the job for most jobs.
I don't see the rise of LLMs as obviating the "functional cog in the Rube Goldberg machine" training.
Kinda like how tax breaks on housing initially help people, and then the market adjusts based on the new inflow of $.
The death of apprenticeships is because you are training your own competition. It worked in the past because you trained your kid for a trade that was arcane and took a couple decades to master, but now you'd be training someone with no loyalty to you in a field that can be speed run in a year or so with YouTube assistance.
Zoho is a classics example of picking students at age 16/17, when they'd typically join a UG course, and instead train them on the job.
Some of the large tech service companies change incentives by tying a training fee ("bond") which is tied to some tenure (1-2 years). Departing before this would mean giving this back - which broadly incentives the planned tenure.
Other companies (musigma is an example) present pay as a 4 year package (10X), which is split 1/2/3/4X across 4 years.
I think the challenges US universities/companies are today facing is something India has needed for a couple decades now. I would not be surprised if many of these are tried in the US.
If you do plan - reach out to me, it's something I've wanted to expand into (currently run UG curriculums).
To the extent it is I agree it should obviously be replaced by on the job training, because that will be much much better. But to me this is what's happening now anyway, de facto.
Even you do, say, a computer science degree which is one of the more obviously industry aligned fields you're still not really learning how to build software products or even useful software at all really except in the most mechanical sense.
You're learning a bunch of variously useful theory (in the sense that it could all be useful in principle but you won't know exactly for what and at what time until you're out building things in the world) and no company is ever going to be incentivised to introduce you this in a proper environment conducive to intellectual exploration separate from 'the job', because frankly you'll be long long gone by the time any of it pays off often decades hence.
They aren't the ones saying it. Parents, government officials and high school guidance counselors are telling everyone they need college to get a good job.
Colleges don't have to say anything thing about it but they raise their tuition abd accept the grant money while expanding their campuses to accommodate the rise in demand. That's exactly how a business would react to a growing market with rising demand and an influx of government money.
People pass through colleges on their way to getting a job and colleges oblige.
What op thinks colleges should be doing is accepting people who they think, with education, could contribute to the college's research fields. Think about the college tracks that lead to PhDs where the student stays with the university for some or all of their career. That's what OP is suggesting colleges become (or revert to, if that's what they ever were).
Even the ones that are ostensibly under software engineering courses where you might even work in a group, it's about as far away from working on a real software project in a company with (or without) customers and capital on the line etc as can be imagined. Probably even open source would be a closer approximation / better practice at this.
And all of this is a good thing and is the point. It's a sandbox, for you to play around, mess up, 'waste time' and learn. No company is going to really give you this sandbox in the same way, nor should they. They're paying you, you're not paying them.
I am not saying this as a black and white statement. I just think there are different cohorts of students based on maturity and self motivation and we might be losing out on one cohort that is at neither extreme.
But it’s hard for me to imagine that for the cohorts in between (who definitely want to be motivated) having some forcing function is just an easier guiding hand to helping them become responsible vs. completely bombing a class and then potentially losing hope or self identifying as lazy/helpless - which I had seen all too often to some of my smartest classmates.
Regardless not saying this to invalidate your experience. Just hasn’t lined up with mine.
The responsibility part is just one element influencing the result.
If it's a well-designed course it should be clear what the content of the exam will be. If not, it's the professor's fault. And barring rare emergencies being rested on the day is also generally a matter of preparation, not luck.
> barring rare emergencies
It doesn't have to be a rare emergency. Things happen, loud student parties happen, random bad nights happen.
In the case of calculus as an example, there should be nothing from the class you didn't have time to practice sufficiently. A full academic year is more than enough time to learn integrals, derivatives, sequences, and series with the small collection of tricks for solving difficult problems (telescoping series, trig sub, etc.) There's a couple dozen rules you learn that are straightforward to apply, and for the times they aren't obvious, there's like a dozen total tricks (trig sub, etc.).
I took these classes. I remember how most people just phoned in the entire thing and complained at the exam review sessions how hard everything was.
It's the simplest of memorization.
No, it doesn't. Repeating it ad infinitum does that.
But therefore it's a good thing grades aren't just pass or fail, but have a range, from 1 to 10, or to 20 or whatever. Too bad there's so much external pressure on the system.
Take a moment to think about it. Why does the confidence interval go smaller with more samples? What does it say about the impact of luck in repeated tests?
"You may bring one 8.5x11 double-sided cheat sheet into the exam. You may write anything you want on it. And I promise you that if you prepare such a sheet, you'll never even look at it during the exam."
And he was right.
I do agree that AI has made this basically useless. Rather than skipping homeworks or doing a bad job the students just cheat and there is no opportunity to notice and intervene. They get all the way to the screen-free final and fail.
You are welcome to believe this. You are also wrong.
I am curious if you have ever taught at a university.
You mean to plagiarize their work. Now finally the nerds also have the option to have somebody else do their work for them.
I began my undergraduate in 2020, so it was mostly online and my uni group had a discord server we all used.
I already knew how to program pretty well, so there were plenty of nights where I sat in discord and helped people debug their programs. I wouldn't share answers directly as the professors checked for identical and identical-with-renamed-identifiers. So the incentives were pretty well aligned for a collaboration where the students did learn something themselves.
I was incentivized to teach them stuff instead of just fixing their problems, and they were incentivized to learn too (so as not to be stuck dependent on me and my time), and for the most part they did.
It was also a very easy way for me as a not-very-social-teen to get integrated and accepted into the group. Not in a transactional way: "I helped you so you owe me". But rather in the sense that they had to give me a chance and they spent time with me in an environment where I was comfortable, which made it more natural for them to invite me to social situations where it would have been more difficult for me to go directly without knowing the people in advance.
And just like people came to me for programming advice, we went to another guy who really knew Math and Physics for those subjects, and so on.
That is all gone now. What a shame.
Half the class was cheating in Ion Stoica’s OS class even when the whole thing was supposed to be a group effort. Like how are you cheating when you’re already working in groups of 4?
Love the optimism, but if you really believe the universe is this fair then you’re too young, too naive or too inexperienced (or any combination therein). The world is absolutely full of people who have cruised through all of that but still manage to get (and maintain) good high paying jobs all the time. “Failing upwards” is a commonly observed phenomenon everywhere, in pretty much every industry.
Truth is: none of that matters in the real world. What matters is how good you are at networking and bullshitting your way through life. Unfortunately for those of us that are terrible at bullshitting, this means a harder professional life no matter how much effort you put into it.
If you think bullshiting and networking are the only things that matter, then I believe it’s your pessimism that’s talking.
In a class of 100, if 50 decide to learn things and 50 decide to complete assignments using AI without learning, I’m willing to put money behind the idea that more people in the first group will do better in life. Of course there will be exceptions because there’s a lot more in life beyond competence, including luck that influences outcomes.
Being friends of the right people can totally give you all the promotions you need, even if all you do has negative value for the company.
The students have made it extremely clear to the teachers
There are plenty of people who have the innate intelligence and intellectual curiosity to succeed in college, but come out of high school lacking discipline and clueless about what they want to study. They would be better off spending a few years working or serving in the military or something to get their shit together first, and then enroll in college later. Those students tend to have clearer goals and take the educational experience more seriously.
Well, that raises an interesting philosophical question. What sorts of learning patterns in a person make them "college material"?
Surely you agree that there are a wide variety of teaching styles present among all college professors. If a student's personal way of learning best is incompatible with their assigned professor, are they not college material? Why is this an issue with the student, and not the professor not being teaching material, or the university not being facilitator-of-education material for failing to match students and professors well?
I agree that people have been pushed into college as a default option due to it being overloaded as both place of learning but also printing salary-granting papers, but it's NOT clear to me that students who need the specific stick mentioned in some cases are broadly unsuited for higher learning.
There are often a variety of tasks which are graded. Homework, exams, presentations, labs, etc. Every class and professor sets the mix of valuation of these differently, and has different quantities of each. That's teaching style.
If you hate presentations and cannot be roused to make one except by threat of failure, but are great at learning the material and pass the exams with ease, then that's a teaching style incompatibility.
Any that are self motivated.
> If a student's personal way of learning best is incompatible with their assigned professor, are they not college material?
Honestly, no. It shows a lack of (a) institutional-navigational skills, e.g. change your professor, (b) flexibility to different learning "styles" (which are increasingly being shown to be a myth) and/or (c) ability to circumvent adversity, e.g. by reading the textbook, finding online videos or hunting down a study group. That doesn't mean they can't learn some of these skills. But if they don't have by them by the end of freshman year, college is a waste of time for them.
Modern college students are basically afforded the freedoms and privileges of a classical scholar with a wealthy patron. Their day-to-day needs are taken care of. They have access to massive libraries. They have access to lectures and professors at office hours. And they navigate all of it with a pre-selected cohort of similar students.
(To be clear, I think one can be tremendously successful and valuable without completing or even attending college. As in no ambitious path is actually closed off from you. Unless it's research.)
I disagree, because muddling through one way or another grants the salary paper that makes it easier to have success in the rest of life.
> To be clear, I think one can be tremendously successful and valuable without completing or even attending college. As in no ambitious path is actually closed off from you. Unless it's research.
Again, I disagree.I mean, I agree on its face, in that a sufficiently motivated and capable person is capable of achieving success with or without a college degree.
But we're talking about people who aren't motivated and capable. The best path to something resembling success for people who lack the motivation and capability to be successful on their own, is to muddle through the university system and by whatever necessary means get the piece of paper.
College at large is not a waste of time for these people. Until the downstream society stops valuing a degree as it does, time spent getting the degree is not wasted, because it yielded the degree. If the paper is had, the time was well spent, regardless of how that time was actually spent or whether anything was learned.
True [1]. I'm not debating the individual incentives. (I wasn't clear about this earlier.) I'm just not convinced a college graduate who muddled through is worth 75% more to an employer or society than a high school grad who muddles.
> a sufficiently motivated and capable person is capable of achieving success with or without a college degree
For a binary measure of success, yes. A successful person empowered with a peaceful, rich society and challenging college experience will do better than one without.
[1] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2025/what-happened-to...
This is something that needs to be fixed downstream, by making the paper less valuable. Making the paper more difficult to get instead is just manufacturing misery because of people too stubborn to pull their heads out of the sand and admit that the function of undergrad is the salary paper, and self-motivated learning has been largely relegated to grad school.
Much of college is a social signaling mechanism. Well over a decade ago one of my family members, with a degree of shame had to explain to a friend why I didn’t finish my BA.
A lot of middle and upper class people use college as a way to filter people. You can argue our top universities also serve as finishing schools.
I did, after reaching six figures anyway, finish my BA. The shame is gone.
Or does it still linger as I went to a middle of the road state school. Not Stanford, Yale or even Berkeley.
Honestly I originally attended community college in part to get grant money/loans which allowed me to get a cheap apartment. As a bonus I meet a lot of cool people, read Howard Zinn.
For most students it’s a mix of the two.
I did very poorly in school growing up. I think I failed at least 4-6 classes in middle/high school.
In college I did well and I'm now getting my masters in CS while working as a software engineer.
So, the 'stick' can certainly be useful. Doing poorly in high school is not necessarily an indicator of how you will do in college -- particularly if your life at home was turbulent as it was for me.