There are several lists like this floating around, but this one is just amazingly comprehensive. Reading a subset of these books (and actually building stuff with the knowledge gained) will most likely provide one with a better education than all but the top-tier computer sci programs.
And the cost is $0. Now one might argue that a college cuts down on the time it takes to select courses, find and work with other students, get access to mentors, etc. But I doubt it. Whatever learning inefficiencies colleges address, other inefficiencies more than counteract those gains.
Consider that colleges also force you to spend more time on classes you could complete more quickly on your on, plus all the required coursework that might be completely unnecessary for your goals.
I never pursued a comp sci degree in college, and it's possible that you're right, their subject matter is so basic you don't need to actually take classes to learn the content. I guess you could further argue that sites like Hacker News are so good at helping you meet like-minded coders that literally living with people who have the same passions doesn't yield the same reward that it used to.
That said:
> plus all the required coursework that might be completely unnecessary for your goals.
These were the courses I have become most thankful for at college. I've taken courses on religion, existentialism, the history of the Enlightenment, an analysis of film genres, a course on silent cinema, a flamenco course, and a number of other classes which each incidentally taught me a new way to look at the world. A liberal arts education is a valuable thing, and it's so much easier to grasp its meaning when you're guided there by a number of skilled, caring professors than when you try and read your way to the same goal. I have no doubt that one day people will create a virtual experience that duplicates or improves on what my college experience has been like, but so far nothing comes close.
In fact, one of my only regrets at college was that it didn't make math or science courses mandatory. I'm regretting more and more that my science knowledge was a high school year of biology, chemistry, and physics apiece. I suspect that taking college courses in the sciences would have exposed me to teachers talented enough to make learning those subjects worthwhile. And it's difficult to search for books about rekindling your passions in the sciences; I find the field pretty obscure and not at all easy to navigate on my own.
I agree that these courses were some of the most valuable. For me a course in Eastern Religions was one of the most eye-opening.
However, there's nothing stopping someone from taking these courses later in life (I've known single moms working 50+ hours who make time for education "just for the sake of learning" so no excuses).
I think where we disagree is in requiring people to do one things (liberal arts learning) while their clear priority is to do something else (get a job to survive in this economy). I think that's unfair, even to college students, who can be an admittedly obnoxious bunch. Forced product bundling rarely has the effect it's intended to have. Sure, there may be some people who learn something neat from a class they're forced to take, but there are a lot more who learn nothing and are simply delayed in achieving their goals.
Why should students from poor families be forced to pay for something that economically secure college administrators insist is for their own good when all the student is trying to do is make a better living for himself than his parents had?
In that light forcing students to take these class is rather morally repugnant. It's tantamount to a tax inflicted on people to pay for more product than they want.
Good arguments. I'm extremely fortunate and have been able to attend a costly 4-year college without debt; I have a tendency to take my time here for granted, which I absolutely shouldn't. I feel that it would be wrong of a college that professes to teach a deeper education not to require a breadth of learning from its students, but again, my perspective is unfairly privileged and I'm not thinking in any sort of cost-efficient manner.
In theory, yes. The student would have to be highly self motivated, but this is actually how I learned to program, until I started joining open source projects. It's cost effective, and in my experience, the majority of engineering jobs (especially in startups) that such a student would apply for care more about your ability to code than your degree. A recent topic here actually showed that most programmers applying for a job can't do all but the simplest of programming tasks in languages they list on their resumés. There are fields where a degree is essential, like medical fields with a lot of hands on work. But the beauty of programming fields is that you can learn from the machine that is principally used in programming: the computer.
Comments
There are several lists like this floating around, but this one is just amazingly comprehensive. Reading a subset of these books (and actually building stuff with the knowledge gained) will most likely provide one with a better education than all but the top-tier computer sci programs.
And the cost is $0. Now one might argue that a college cuts down on the time it takes to select courses, find and work with other students, get access to mentors, etc. But I doubt it. Whatever learning inefficiencies colleges address, other inefficiencies more than counteract those gains.
Consider that colleges also force you to spend more time on classes you could complete more quickly on your on, plus all the required coursework that might be completely unnecessary for your goals.
I never pursued a comp sci degree in college, and it's possible that you're right, their subject matter is so basic you don't need to actually take classes to learn the content. I guess you could further argue that sites like Hacker News are so good at helping you meet like-minded coders that literally living with people who have the same passions doesn't yield the same reward that it used to.
That said:
> plus all the required coursework that might be completely unnecessary for your goals.
These were the courses I have become most thankful for at college. I've taken courses on religion, existentialism, the history of the Enlightenment, an analysis of film genres, a course on silent cinema, a flamenco course, and a number of other classes which each incidentally taught me a new way to look at the world. A liberal arts education is a valuable thing, and it's so much easier to grasp its meaning when you're guided there by a number of skilled, caring professors than when you try and read your way to the same goal. I have no doubt that one day people will create a virtual experience that duplicates or improves on what my college experience has been like, but so far nothing comes close.
In fact, one of my only regrets at college was that it didn't make math or science courses mandatory. I'm regretting more and more that my science knowledge was a high school year of biology, chemistry, and physics apiece. I suspect that taking college courses in the sciences would have exposed me to teachers talented enough to make learning those subjects worthwhile. And it's difficult to search for books about rekindling your passions in the sciences; I find the field pretty obscure and not at all easy to navigate on my own.
I agree that these courses were some of the most valuable. For me a course in Eastern Religions was one of the most eye-opening.
However, there's nothing stopping someone from taking these courses later in life (I've known single moms working 50+ hours who make time for education "just for the sake of learning" so no excuses).
I think where we disagree is in requiring people to do one things (liberal arts learning) while their clear priority is to do something else (get a job to survive in this economy). I think that's unfair, even to college students, who can be an admittedly obnoxious bunch. Forced product bundling rarely has the effect it's intended to have. Sure, there may be some people who learn something neat from a class they're forced to take, but there are a lot more who learn nothing and are simply delayed in achieving their goals.
Why should students from poor families be forced to pay for something that economically secure college administrators insist is for their own good when all the student is trying to do is make a better living for himself than his parents had?
In that light forcing students to take these class is rather morally repugnant. It's tantamount to a tax inflicted on people to pay for more product than they want.
Good arguments. I'm extremely fortunate and have been able to attend a costly 4-year college without debt; I have a tendency to take my time here for granted, which I absolutely shouldn't. I feel that it would be wrong of a college that professes to teach a deeper education not to require a breadth of learning from its students, but again, my perspective is unfairly privileged and I'm not thinking in any sort of cost-efficient manner.
In theory, yes. The student would have to be highly self motivated, but this is actually how I learned to program, until I started joining open source projects. It's cost effective, and in my experience, the majority of engineering jobs (especially in startups) that such a student would apply for care more about your ability to code than your degree. A recent topic here actually showed that most programmers applying for a job can't do all but the simplest of programming tasks in languages they list on their resumés. There are fields where a degree is essential, like medical fields with a lot of hands on work. But the beauty of programming fields is that you can learn from the machine that is principally used in programming: the computer.