Does go to university makes sense?

[EdgeGod900]

@Hojo I can only speak of computer science. You can learn it for free online, BUT YOU NEED COMPELLING PERSONAL PROJECTS to compete against college graduates.

 

If you want COmputer Science:

1) Research a Curriculum for a Computer science degree -- its so easy.

2) Find free online courses/textbooks of the topics in the curriculum

• MIT OCW has Algorithms(6.006) and Operating Systems(6.828 i think) as its notable free courses.
• MIT OCW has other CS, math, and stats courses.
• MIT OCW courses will give you lecture notes, assignments, schedule, labs, etc.. like an online course.
• Other universities also have free courses
• Buy textbooks and do the exercise. 

3) Create your personal projects to showcase ur skills

 

Most university is just to make connections(IMO chimp stuff). Most of the learning can be done for free online.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Leo Gura, you told me you could learn and do philosophy with an AI, minus the technical rigor.

Have you changed your mind, or is it different for philosophy?

Very few people have the self-discipline and drive it takes to learn a degree's worth of philosophy all on their own. You won't even know what to study.

If you're super disciplined and motivated you can be entirely self-taught. But this is not scalable across society and it's not suitable for most people.

AI is a nice tool but it's not a replacement for an entire degree. A degree is a serious bit of work. It's not like taking a few online classes.

Edited September 12 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you're super disciplined and motivated you can be entirely self-taught.

What do you mean by self-taught? Thinking independently about different stuff while using online or offline resources (university courses, books, and/or people who do philosophy and their courses, books, and also not easily accessible content, which I think are academic level)?

I don't mean watching a few videos about something that aren't well-curated enough for learning when I say online.

What does the degree include that I will never know about if I don't go to university, aside from technical rigor and educating me in a structured way?

(To be honest, I don't like that much the structures of teaching a subject in universities)

The thing is, I don't care if I'm known as a philosopher or not, and I'm not in a rush to get a degree and fill in some position as a philosopher.

Also, can't we use AI to create a degree level of education for ourselves, in this case for philosophy?

Do you think an AI "knows" about what and how universities actually teach?

Edited September 12 by Nemra

[Asia P]

48 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

@Leo Gura  I would say that art is the only field that absolutely don't need university.

I went to art school, and in my experience art needs a university if you want to learn traditional thechniques that u can use both for working in an academic way, or also for deconstruct this rules to make your unique and non-traditional art.

The art grows when the artist needs to express something, and when he already knows what he wants to tell most of the work is done. But the more thechniques and knowledge you got, the more you can express. Art school gives a start, then you need to try new things and experiment new, mixing the knowledge that you've got, to expand the practical ways to express art that you know.

[Rigel]

Where I live, education is not that expensive but I understand that it’s not the case for a huge part of the world.

If you got the money to spare or are a lucky bastard like me you should try it & see for yourself. You can always drop out if it doesn’t fit you.

I have class mates from outside the country that have the same courses as me & they pay 4x what I pay for the same thing. I get it if it’s too expensive for you.

[Ero]

6 hours ago, Null Simplex said:

 However, if you want to learn math for math’s sake, there are cheaper, faster, and better resources online and great text books as well.  Just my opinion, of course. 

How far did you go into math beyond linear algebra and group theory? 

I am also a pure math student, and the truth is you can’t find online good resources on anything above abstract algebra and real analysis. Have you ever spent 6h on a problem on elliptic functions? Or on singular cohomology? There are no actual “online courses” on topics like these, which are considered basic graduate topics.

It is true you can just download the books for free, but the difference between studying yourself (which I have) and in college is incomparable. Moreso, at that level, there’s no cute video that can demonstrate the concepts your working with.

If anyone is genuinely serious about mathematics (which you would know by end of HS), i mean it, college is the only way. You wont even know how to write a proofs without that, and that means you won’t be doing mathematics, only hand waving.

[Davino]

Imo, university is overrated but a necessary step for your human growth.

I would have serious doubts about university if I lived in the US or in any place where I had to pay absurd money for my education, putting myself in risky financial situations.

You live in Rome, I know Sapienza is a good university so I would pick something meaningful for you and get a degree. It will do you good, so much growth happens in the university ecosystem, as your'e exposed to many new experiences and forced to study hard.

As some background I'm studying two university degrees simultanously (telecommunications engineering and computer science) and this is my last year before graduating.

Edited September 12 by Davino

[Socrates]

If I had to guess 99% of people going to uni do it to appeal to the social norms and for the prestige or because they were forced by their parents. Other than that if you are anyhow conscious and hear a uni professor speak you will throw up.

I cant listen to someone that doesn't know anything about anything, let alone pay him for it. 

Waste of my damn time.

[Null Simplex]

@Ero I haven’t learned much past those topics as of now.  I am working on a paper for how to share resources more fairly using bachelor’s level mathematics, so I consider myself an amateur mathematician.

You may have a point, but I’m not sure what you could teach on a black board that you couldn’t also teach in an online format.   I don’t see how lectures on elliptic functions or singular cohomology couldn’t be taught online in the same way that arithmetic and topology are taught online.  My guess is that the number of people who teach graduate level mathematics is low, and people who teach online and who specialize in higher level mathematics is incredibly rare, not that these topics couldn’t be taught in an online format in the future.  You are correct about proof writing though, as that requires practice and someone to correct the work.

My broader point is that math education should focus on what the math is even about first, then discuss the theorems and the proofs.  For example, I had a weak understanding of linear algebra in uni.  I knew that determinants could calculate the hypervolumes of parallelepipeds and that a matrix is invertibile iff its determinant was not 0, but I had no idea what these disjoint concepts had to do with one another.  It wasn’t until 3B1B’s series on linear algebra where it became clear to me how matrices transform vector spaces in a way which is “linear”, and how the determinant tells you how much the matrix transforms the hypervolumes of unit hypercubes.  So when the determinant is 0, that means the hypercubes are flattened, meaning the linear transformation is not one-to-one, meaning the matrix is not invertible.  It would have taken my professor half an hour at most to explain this and it would have made every subsequent theorem and proof related to determinants make more sense.

There is one class I took which I don’t consider a waste of time and money.  It was a topology course I took in graduate school which utilized the Moore method.  Essentially, the professor gave no lectures, we were not allowed to read any text books, or use online sources.  All we had was a pamphlet which started with two axioms for topology, some definitions based on those axioms, and then statements based on those axioms and definitions.  We were not told which statements were true and which were false, and it was up to us to either prove or disprove the statement.  As the pamphlet progressed, more definitions and statements were added which were based on the axioms, definitions, and statements prior in the pamphlet.  Lectures were essentially students presenting there results to the class.  My only gripe with this class is that I would teach it backwards.  It started with very abstract concepts and from them it built more tangible structures.  For example, it started with topologies, then discussed the separation axioms 1-4, then it went to metric spaces, and finally got to the real number line.  I would start with the more intuitive structures, and then chisel away at them until all that remained were the axioms of topology, as this is closer to how topology was created in the first place.

This class encouraged critical, independent, and creative thinking, as well as strengthened my proof writing more than any lecture-homework-study-test-repeat style class, and its not even close.  If more math classes were like this, I wouldn’t consider bachelor level’s mathematics courses a waste of time and money.  

Edited September 13 by Null Simplex

[Twega]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:42 AM, Leo Gura said:

Very few people have the self-discipline and drive it takes to learn a degree's worth of philosophy all on their own. You won't even know what to study.

If you're super disciplined and motivated you can be entirely self-taught. But this is not scalable across society and it's not suitable for most people.

AI is a nice tool but it's not a replacement for an entire degree. A degree is a serious bit of work. It's not like taking a few online classes.

@Leo Gura so did you change your mind? Because in the past you made it clear the university isn't necessary to learn philosophy.

 

What about this video? I understand the STEM argument, but this is a surprise for me coming from you. I even asked you a question about learning philosophy and if university is neccessary

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, nevermind, the AI gave helpful, nuanced, and exciting answers to my questions. 😁

But thanks for clarifying.

Edited September 13 by Nemra

[Basman]

10 hours ago, Twega said:

@Leo Gura so did you change your mind? Because in the past you made it clear the university isn't necessary to learn philosophy.

 

What about this video? I understand the STEM argument, but this is a surprise for me coming from you. I even asked you a question about learning philosophy and if university is neccessary

Take my opinion with a grain of salt as I'm only in the first semester of a philosophy degree, but I don't think you need to go to university to learn philosophy. Uni teaches you western academic philosophy specifically, which is a particular style of philosophy. If you want to do philosophy, you don't have to adopt the academic style unless you want to work within academia.

You'll probably find the material insightful but it is not strictly speaking necessary. None of our textbooks are unique to uni and can be bought regularly.

 

[Ero]

@Null Simplex Thanks for sharing! I do agree that there are many deficiencies in our current model of teaching world-wide. Some of it has to do with lack of resources, but even in Ivy I've stumbled on really badly taught classes in math, so I get your point. I agree mathematics can be taught in much more intuitive way with visualizations like the ones 3Blue1Brown does and sure hope to contribute in the automation of such visualizations in the near future. 

My only point is that if you are really passionate about mathematics, university is a really good idea. 

[Null Simplex]

@Ero I concede to your and Leo’s point.  University is better for a maths education than no university.  Your arguments have persuaded me, and going forward I will soften my rhetoric on this topic.  Still, professors should put more emphasis on concept to motivate the theory.

Edited September 15 by Null Simplex

[Leo Gura]

On 9/13/2024 at 1:48 AM, Twega said:

so did you change your mind? Because in the past you made it clear the university isn't necessary to learn philosophy.

I didn't change my mind, but it depends on your goals and your drive.

If you want the highest quality philosophy you must do it yourself. But very few are capable of this.

But if you follow my work I am trying to show you how to do philosophy properly. But then again, this is my biased way. My way isn't the only way to go about philosophy.

Just judging by my own time studying philosophy in university, it was a total joke. Nothing of substance about reality was understood. I make Actualized.org to address those inadequecies.

Edited September 15 by Leo Gura

[hyruga]

It depends on what you want in your professional career.

Most of the top CEOs or CFOs or even normal managers have uni degrees or even higher certifications so if you are aiming to achieve a high position in a big multi national companies, then you should go get a degree for a start.

If you are confident of making it on your own or that you can start a company and make your own money, then you may not need a degree.

Edited September 15 by hyruga

[kylan11]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I didn't change my mind, but it depends on your goals and your drive.

If you want the highest quality philosophy you must do it yourself. But very few are capable of this.

But if you follow my work I am trying to show you how to do philosophy properly. But then again, this is my biased way. My way isn't the only way to go about philosophy.

Just judging by my own time studying philosophy in university, it was a total joke. Nothing of substance about reality was understood. I make Actualized.org to address those inadequecies.

The best thing about a degree is that it at least gives you structure in your studies. A basic framework to explore the field, and as you progress you can deconstruct the framework also.

You get exposed to the best thought humanity has to offer over thousands of years (although in a superficial way, it's up to the student to get to the substance) and then you use those tools in your personal philosophical inquiry. But so few people delve into that, it's a failure.

Instead, learning online quickly gets you overwhelmed by the sheer size of the beast, leaving you a shaky knowledge base made up of little fragments gathered by insomniac 2 AM google searches.

[Leo Gura]

59 minutes ago, kylan11 said:

You get exposed to the best thought humanity has to offer over thousands of years

That is not the case for philosophy.

59 minutes ago, kylan11 said:

Instead, learning online quickly gets you overwhelmed by the sheer size of the beast, leaving you a shaky knowledge base made up of little fragments gathered by insomniac 2 AM google searches.

Real philosophy cannot be learned from reading, it must be done by contemplation and direct experience.

[El Zapato]

On 9/11/2024 at 8:41 PM, Hojo said:

If you want a job that requires you to go then yea. If you are doing any art then no. going to school for art is like butchering your imagination.

my daughter started college that way and after some agonizing reappraisal stepped into another path. She felt the way you described.

[Nemra]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Real philosophy cannot be learned from reading.

Most of the things are like that, imo.

I think what's needed is to make the distinction that by reading, we're mostly going to be aware of what ways people have thought.

You are also offering your philosophy to open our minds to new kinds of thinking.

Literally, reading or listening to someone's philosophy could give you "tools" to discover new things.

But you're still the one out there who isn't dogmatic, doesn't artificially limit himself, and engages in deep stuff.

Edited September 15 by Nemra