Is there any point in studying further (officially) other than to get the piece of paper/qualification necessary to get the job you want?
Through this link you can download free of charge the lecture notes, exams, and other resources from more than 1800 courses offered by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in what they call OpenCourseWare.
So... if you can get the info for free, why pay?
1) Access to the top lecturers in the world
2) Studying alongside incredibly bright people who challenge you
3) Connected to 2, networking opportunities
4) Building your CV
I think (4) seems to be the only logically defensible argument. You can interact with both the lecturers and students through the web for free. You could even rent a house by the university, attend the lectures, mix with the other students free of charge. The only thing you wouldn't have is the piece of paper?
How much is that paper worth?
Maybe it just makes you feel your opinions are `worth more'?
Fine...
Then why do I feel I still think it is worth it?
8 comments:
Did you see Tyler Cowen's recent post on education?
No, Will try find it
"Education isn't mainly about signalling", March 26.
I think the most accepted economic theory is that education IS all about signalling i.e. getting the piece of paper is all that it's for.
TC is now doubting this. But he still doesn't think it's got anything to do with learning the stuff you're supposed to be learning.
A couple of years ago when I was doing those economics courses through University of London I also got very excited to find that MIT stuff on the web. Didn't really end up using it though. Maybe still will sometime.
Bryan caplan responded on econlog. he's writing a book about why education is all about signaling.
Going to a university like MIT does provide incredible networking opportunities plus is a great place to nab a good spouse, I find that a compelling reason to pay up.
i think you CAN take advantage of being around really smart people (outside of socialising), but few who go there actually do.
I think your point no. 4 involves circular reasoning; why should it count as such a plus on your CV?
Well... circular if people believe the benefits of the first three lead to the postive signal on the 4th.
I would have said Signalling if I had known the word. Now I know it... so thats what I mean.
I know a few people who I thought were at UCT but were actually at the local training colleges. You don't have to attend MIT to attend MIT.
Maybe it is just worth moving there but not paying the fees.
it's easy to do that, but VERY few people do it, which suggests few people are concerned about the learning per se.
If you buy points 1, 2 or 3 then it isn't circular reasoning, but I understood that you though 4 was the only defensible one implying that you didn't buy the first 3. it you don't buy those, why buy no. 4?
Robin Hanson has a post on exactly what you're talking about.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/04/to_learn_or_cre.html
The Benefits of the first 3 can be achieved without paying. Effectively the only thing you are buying is the right to put it on your CV. So accepting the first 3 doesn't make it worth paying, accepting the 4th does.
I also think having an exam is a motivator in terms of getting things done for people. I may be very interested in philosophy, but I take ages to read Russel's books. I am interested to a lessor degree in Investing and yet I get 12 hours of studying done a week. This is because I have an exam in June. I don't have a Philosophy exam.
Greg mentions his past excitement about the MIT stuff, yet he didn't start using it. I don't think Greg is the kind of guy that cares about CV building anymore, so point 4 wouldn't work there. There must be another reason that we don't use stuff that doesn't have time pressure/results of failing.
Post a Comment