Stupid ass private education bullshit

  • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    It doesn’t. It costs money to skip a lot of the effort and have someone guide you through a curriculum and give you direct guidance and feedback on how to get that knowledge.

    I have an Engineering degree, everything I learned there could absolutely be learned by someone curious poking around on the internet for videos, papers, and course slides that you’ll probably need to read alongside a wiki page. They tend to come up pretty quickly once you’re familiar enough with a field to start investigating one level deeper from a basic high school education.

  • hightrix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It doesn’t.

    It takes time and effort to gain more knowledge. It has never been cheaper or more accessible to acquire knowledge than it is today.

    To increase your intelligence, is another matter all together.

    • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      I would also add that damn near all of human information is free to be had on the internet for the low, low price of a monthly broadband bill. The real expense comes when you want a piece of paper that says you know all this that other people will take seriously.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        While absolutely true. I would say it’s much harder to find today than ten years ago. The Internet as an information source is being degraded on a daily basis. The amount of misinformation, ads disguised as information, and AI slop is destroying your ability to find that information.

        • ranzispa@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Textbooks on any subject are easily retrievable for free. You could previously go to a library, but the internet makes it much easier to retrieve that kind of information.

        • Ludrol@szmer.info
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s true for infotaiment stuff but for boring knowladge not so much. If you seek textbooks and recordings of lectures, there is still a lot of great stuff out there. It’s boring as ditch water but boring is good.

  • elbiter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I guess you’re talking about the US.

    Well, everything costs money there: education, health, safety… It’s capitalist dystopia.

  • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    In Australia University used to be free. At some point they realised that Asia is close and has a virtually limitless supply of rich parents who want to pay big money for their kids to be lawyers and doctors.

    Education is now one of Australia’s main exports.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      same in US, most of them seek out international rich students, and you can see how much of these from the middle east and asian coming in with thier expensive cars to campus everyday. at the same time they neglect the rest of the students, so they dont prepare them for thier career track as there is very little resources directing to the departments, just enough to get by so the Professors and staff dont “revolt”, they also abuse the adjunct positions to avoid paying them full time, or more benefits, if they can replace all the instructors with masters or BS level educations they would instead of getting PHDs. it all goes to wooeing international students, and sports. stem needs lab work as experience, but its so limited and small most graduating dont even know about it, or its extremely hard to get into. you can tell the university is being cheap if they use overworked professors to do advising.

    • tea@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      It is wild to me that tuition is SO expensive and quality educational content is SO ubiquitous now. It does take a lot of time, skill, and effort to provide quality educational experiences, but man is it weird that it is simultaneously free and ridiculously overpriced.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        University is overpriced, but a degree isn’t just saying that you’ve gained knowledge. Being able to look up and memorize stuff doesn’t mean you’ll be good employee. if you can’t work effectively with a team or tend not to finish a project all the knowledge in the world means nothing.

        The most important thing most degrees demonstrate is that you can work for years on a project with multiple milestones involving multiple disciplines, work with others or self-direct, and meet goals.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          alot of people fall into the trap of easy degree, like psychology, a studies/arts degree. yea you arnt going anywhere with a psych degree, if your not academically preparing for grad school like PSY-D, or psychology doctorate. i witnessed quite a few people that got a degree, and then complain about it. i had a cousin that did her psych degree properly, she has a PSY-D a while a go.

          there is a suggestion going around in other forums,communities, that schools should start holding talks or seminars about different majors, and thier job prospects, but we know they wouldnt, because it would scare people away from these degrees that are money makers and coporations can abuse/exploit low wages for many fields.

        • tea@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Yes, agreed. Definitely value there. I feel like a huge part of university is demonstrating the ability to learn and apply oneself. So many people have success (like myself) in areas that they did not major in.

          One thing that I think is actually an argument for big state schools vs private, more expensive lib arts schools is that the big state schools provide you skills in navigating “a System” and that does help when you get into the real world and the damn corporate rat race. Smaller liberal art schools might have more academic competition maybe, but less bureaucratic competition, in many cases. In many cases bureaucratic navigation skills, which are often more valuable in job applicants IRL.

          Most impressive are folks that have gathered both the book smarts and the world navigation smarts without the need of higher education institutions and carved their path without going into huge debt or getting carried by rich parents who paid for their degree.

          • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            we had a bunch of gifted students in HS, or high performing, i believe we only had 1 gifted per semester/class. they were “paraded around” the school like they were best of the school, while at the same time neglecting the underperfoming struggling students, which is quite a large part of the student body.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        our state schools in the wests, apparently were suffering from enrollment deficiencies so they decided to raise tuition (equivalent to dorms), covid exposed unmasked the problem with the schools thats been ongoing before the pandemic. basically people were graduating in the early-mid or late pandemic and they dint learn anything or dint have a chance to get any experience, so they all but criticized the schools, and probably warned thier family hs students away from university.

        as of recently the state universities started to enticing hs students of early easier admissions, if they complete these x amount of courses. I dint follow up if the tuition is higher for these students as well. Some students criticized these state school, transferred to a more prestigious university for better opportunities. what universities need to do for stem is increasing the resources for LAB WORK, like make opportunities for more lap spaces,etc, this is the most important part of a major.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    It doesn’t. It costs money to get the diploma that’s proof of your smarts. The Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz didn’t actually get a brain, he got a diploma.

    My son is a committed cinephile, and has systematically watched nearly every movie ever made, in any country, in any era ( it seems). He’s an expert, by anyone’s estimation. He just started back to college for a degree in Film Studies, because while he has the knowledge, in order to get a job teaching film, or working in an archive, etc., he needs the degree.

    So you aren’t buying the knowledge, any person who makes a serious commitment can get the knowledge, you are paying for an organization ( a school) to endorse your knowledge. Kind of a Certificate of Authenticity for your intelligence.

  • Nighed@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I would argue that its rare for education to make you smarter, it mostly makes you more knowlegable.

    Knowledge is mostly free though. You can get it from the internet, from the library etc. A lot of what you are paying for is the certification - some places let you just sit the exam I think.

    • Ansis100@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Or in some cases, like FOSS, the knowledge is freely available, but you pay for a detailed course or tutorial to receive that information in a simpler, more streamlined way.

      • Nighed@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        A lot of the time I paid to have it taught to me so badly that I would have been better off with a textbook. 😢

        They then call me up once every few years to ask for a donation! Fk off, I’m still paying off the loan!

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yuuuup. Piece of paper literally to get a higher paying job. Only says you attended school, doesn’t mean you learned anything or built skills there.

    • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s one of the things I’m most grateful about living in Sweden. I wouldn’t be able to pursue higher education otherwise.

    • Komodo Rodeo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 days ago

      Social infrastructure FTW, a far more respectable way to run the ship. I’ll keep with the boat analogy to use another idiom; “a rising tide lifts all boats” society shows wisdom in encouraging the kinds of conditions where their citizens can succeed without significant barriers, and improve the whole of it afterward (instead of the banking institutions which extend predatory high-interest loans) with their success. Hats off to Sweden.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Here in Sweden education is free

      Free at point of service. But it’s 7% of Swedish GDP, with all of that coming from public coffers.

      Compare it to the US, which spends only 5.5% of GDP on education, with the majority on the heavily privatized university level.

      The math gets worse when you look at student/teacher ratios, administration overhead, building construction, and spending on extracurriculars like sports.

      Americans spend less overall than their swedish counterparts, but far more on amenities that have nothing to do with the actual mechanics of education.

      According to my American economics education, this proves the American system is actually more efficient. Swedes would do better to adopt our model, if they want to be A#1 Liberty Whiskey Sexy, like we are.

    • Goretantath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I got beat for refusing to work in a mall hanging clothing while the “school” took my pay for my education at sped ed. Sweden should think about running things here instead…

      • vatlark@lemmy.world
        shield
        M
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        You made negative claims about a vulnerable group of people.

        People have been engaging you in good faith and you responded with sarcasm and trolling.

        Let’s let things cool off a little.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        Learning isn’t a guarantee of a higher income. It might help temporarily, but when all the poor are educated they will still be on the bottom of the economic pyramid, and possibly less complacent about their situation having been educated…

          • vatlark@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            Above I provided some research into this debate. It didn’t have any information on people “obviously not educating themselves”. Would you be able to cite some research?

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            You are ignoring the systemic effects: a society were everybody is highly educated is a society were everybody can worked in higher value added areas hence the entire society is actually richer.

            Even those who are poor in a highly educated society relatively to others in the same society are still better off compared to people in societies which do not invest in Education - even when that society focuses more on quality of life than wealth production, they live much better because of that society’s higher productive capabilities.

            The biggest difference between the US and most of Europe when it comes to Education is that the former looks at it as a way for individuals to become more competitive in the job market versus other individuals (a perspective also displayed in your posts) whilst the latter sees Education as a strategic investment to raise the productivity of the entire country, often beyond the mere “money making” and into quality of life domains.

            Sweden invests in Education because it allows the country to more and better host higher return Economic areas this pulling the country up, whilst in the US beyond a certain point it has to be individuals investing themselves in their own Education purely for their own personal good.

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Education is a good thing, but in a society where everybody is well educated just having an education doesn’t get you the most desirable real estate…

            • 1984@lemmy.todayBanned from community
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              I think Sweden has actually become more like America in that regard. Young people are not thinking about the country, they want to get rich quick, just like in America.

              The culture in Sweden is also highly americanized, if thats a word for it… American tv, American social media, American attitudes.

              Everyone realizes that going to work for a corporation as a salary slave is not the way to get rich. Its the same thing in the US with the gen z generation as we have here.

              Sweden is like mini America but with enough socialism that companies cant do what they want, and people have access to laws to protect their jobs to a degree, as well as free healthcare, parental leaves and vacations.

              Also public transport. But America is better for those super high salaries. They hardly exist here.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I’ve lived in 3 countries in Europe for long periods in the last 3 decades and at least in the last two - Britain and Portugal - also saw the “Americanization” of society.

                This was especially glaring in Portugal as there I was returning from 2 decades abroad, which made more visible the changes to an American model that happened in the meanwhile, including in terms of how people’s behaviour has shifted more towards that way of thinking, very similarly to what you’re describing for Sweden.

                Even the politics has shifted to American style sleaze talk and even lying - back in the day politicians would resign when caught lying, nowadays that’s just Monday morning.

                Personally I find it even more shocking for Portugal since IMHO, Portugal was always culturally more backwards than Northern Europe (specifically in comparison with The Netherlands, were I also lived and hence can compare both countries from personal experience) and American ways are (also IMHO) even more regressive than Portugal in general (at least when it comes to interpersonal relations, where the American way glorifies sociopathic behaviours whilst traditionally the Portuguese way was a lot about taking in account the feelings of others, though also with a big chunk of “what will people think” that moderates acts of screwing up other people directly), though it’s a different kind of regressiveness, and the Americanization of Portugal coincides with what by most metrics (such as PP income, inequality, social mobility, quality of life, violent crime) is the country stopping it’s progress (that had been going one since Fascism was overthrown in 74) and now going back.

                Again, comparing like to like with The Netherlands (which has gone down a route similar to what you describe for Sweden), I think how bad Americanization was for the various countries in Europe very much depends on how advanced they were in terms of both the wealth of their society and popularity of politicies to benefit the many as a group, hence countries like Portugal have so far suffered more than The Netherlands (and, it seems, Sweden) purelly because of having started this period already well behind those countries.

      • vatlark@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        I am a mod here and this comment was reported for Nazi rhetoric.

        While I’m certainly sorry to see anti-immigration sentiment I would rather show a realistic perspective of immigration. It’s easy to see that immigration is a positive for the host county and for the world, especially for refugees.

        Thankfully Sweden seems to have a generally healthy perspective on welfare and immigration.

        Here is an interesting meta study on research into the Swedish immigration debate.

        In the most direct measurement, the immigrant populations that take the longest time make net positive tax contribution are refugees.

        The low employment rate among refugees in their first years in the host country means that average incomes were low in these years. Although incomes grew steadily as the years passed, it took almost 20 years for the average refugee in Sweden to make a positive annual net contribution to public finances. The simple explanation for this is that a larger proportion of migrants have been active in sectors that are socially necessary but low paid, in service occupations such as healthcare, transport, restaurants, and so on (Frödin & Kjellberg, Citation2018).

        I hope Swedish people feel pride in the refugees they are able to host. It’s impressive that despite refugees working a lot of jobs that are needed for society to function (letting other high tax payers have nice lives) but are low pay, they are still able to become net contributors to public finances in 20 years.

        The paper points out how integrating immigrants into the workforce quickly is important but that can be challenging because refugees often come in influxes.

        And education is a big part of finding work:

        And in conclusion it says:

        With this as a central point of departure, an aging population is considered by far the most important motivation for increasing immigration. From this perspective, migration can be justified both from a short-term perspective, as its net contribution to the public finances can be crucial for the financing of welfare, and from a long-term perspective, as it can have clearly positive effects on the supply of labour. This is mainly for demographic reasons as the vast majority of migrants are of young working age. Among migrant groups, two categories are clearly favourable to government finances: highly educated migrants and labour migrants. Objections are often raised to the third category – refugee immigrants – who are argued to have high introduction costs, mainly in the initial years of residence.

        A one-sided focus on the average cost burden of refugee migrants that only compares their costs during the years of stay in Sweden with the costs of the native population during the same period is highly misleading. Such a comparison ignores the extensive costs to which comprehensive welfare systems are exposed. For the Swedish welfare system, with its generous benefits and welfare services, life cycle welfare expenditure includes a social safety net during childhood and adolescence. This provides a more comparable picture of migrants’ actual burden on welfare programmes in relation to citizens covered by social protection from ‘the cradle to the grave’. The significant number of refugees who migrate as adults imposes no costs at all on the public finances of the host country during these years. Thus, if their costs to the welfare system are related to their age, the average total cost burden on the welfare system will be significantly lower than that of the native population.

        In sum, and as Scocco and Andersson (Citation2015) and Ruist (Citation2019) note, the effects of immigration on the economy are exaggerated in the political debate. The growing opposition to immigration can be explained by the failure of the political establishment to implement the rapid inclusion of newly arrived migrants into the labour market. The literature on the impacts of migration does not find any trends that could seriously threaten the sustainability of welfare states. Modern welfare states do not experience any dramatic economic problems due to immigration. In economic terms, immigration can affect central government finances by a few percentage points, plus or minus, depending on the success of the employment policy and whether the labour market succeeds in quickly absorbing new migrants, but can by no means be considered a threat to financial stability.

      • gerryflap@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah okay but OP is asking why it costs money to become smarter. The answer is: it doesn’t. But it does cost money to get help with getting smarter and to get a certificate that you did get smarter. And that does indeed cost more than it should in many places

      • Newsteinleo@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        I guarantee you, knowledge means something. You need the degree to get the job, but if you don’t know your ass for your elbow, that entry level job is as far as you are going to go. If you want a promotion and pay raise, you need to know your shit.

          • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            In healthcare, yes. An IT guy, a plumber, an analyst, no. Legal and healthcare are the only two fields I can think of right now that a person with enough knowledge couldn’t enter without a diploma.
            But those two fields make up what, 1 percent?

            Also, I don’t need to go to europe, because I’m already there.

            • ranzispa@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              There are many other fields that require a degree. Engineering, architecture, chemistry, biology, etc. In some of those fields you can find some jobs which you can do without the degree, but the vast majority do require it.

              I hire people and, to be fair, most people with a degree do not qualify as valid for certain jobs. But in that case is lack of knowledge. In my case I’d rather have someone without degree but with a deep knowledge; but those are very hard to find.

              • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Ok, first off, I don’t give a shit who you are or what you do, that’s not what this is about and unless your job has to do with looking at such topics in a scientific and non subjective way, which I did not read from you, your opinion matters just as much as anyone elses, just like mine.

                Coming back to nicer grounds, yes, for the fields you have mentioned, that’s absolutely true. Those fields are quite critical and in my opinion should be gated by a diploma. You don’t just get to call yourself and architect and draft a building that collapses. Same with a chemist and accidentally poisoning the groundwater or being a scientist in general and wasting a lot of time and money, and so on. Also, please notice how I said I couldn’t think of any more, just genuinely low effort, was not meaning to say there weren’t.

                I think that generally any job that has no immediate severe repercussions and where your employer can reasonably give you a probabtion period, you can just go ahead and do with enough knowledge. Such include (I’m only listing exotic ones, since that’s what we’re seemingly focusing on in this thread):
                Technical writer
                Salesperson
                Consultant
                Data Analyst
                Project Manager

                And in europe there is literally no gate to entry to lower level jobs like technical support or warehouse. Keep in mind that the vast majority of workers are not in the position to be a lawyer or a scientist.

                But even with all that considered, my point still stands: The jobs you can’t do without a diploma, that’s like 1% of jobs. (Likely incorrect percentage)

                Aaaand on top of that, when you’re in europe, you don’t even really have to go to uni. Sure, there are lectures you need to technically be present for, but you can just go, say you’re there, then leave. Then you have to pay like in the lower end of a few thousand bucks, which the university will even just straight up give to you if you’re poor and you can just take your exams. I don’t see nothing wrong with the exams, they’re good in any way.

                What’s the problem here is the privatization of job opportunities, which for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist on this side of the lake. This is a uniquely american problem we’re talking about here.

                I hIrE pEoPlE

                • ranzispa@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  The discussion was about the importance of a degree into finding a job. I hire people to work in research to develop novel drugs. I generally do not care whether they have a degree or not, but the degree does generally come with a level of preparation on the subject and a level of reasoning skills which are not easy to develop without formal training/working in the field. I did some times favor people without a degree over people with a PhD because they felt better candidates to me. Sometimes this is not possible due to bureaucracy. If you prefer, I do not actually hire people; I select people that should be hired with grant money I obtained to conduct certain research jobs.

                  I don’t know how it works in the US, but to get a job in sales or as a project manager a degree is not required where I live. Candidates with a degree may be favoured by a company, but there is no law enforcing the requirement for a degree. And I do know many people working those jobs without a degree.

                  Regarding the fact that you don’t need to go to university in Europe. I’m not really sure if I understand, I guess you mean it is not compulsory to attend lectures. I studied in Italy, there this was the case: all lectures were absolutely discretionary and you could finish your degree without attending a single one. That is except experimental stuff, which indeed you’d need to attend. You could theoretically just study from the books and pass all the exams and get your degree. However, lectures are very good for understanding what you’re studying, most people were attending all lectures anyway. The fact that those are optional is useful if some days you can not attend for whatever reason, whether you’re working or busy in some other way. This, however, is not the case throughout Europe. I live in Spain now, where attendance of lectures is compulsory. You do not get a degree unless you attend a specified percentage of the lectures. Many other countries in Europe follow this system.

                  In some countries in Europe you do not pay to attend university. In others you do have to pay, it’s generally a few thousand euros per year. In most countries you can get scholarships and not have to pay such fees or even get a salary for studying.

                  I believe we’re just misunderstanding each other. I do agree, for many jobs a degree is not necessary. But for many other jobs it is, or at least some kind of technical training. I believe the amount of jobs who do require some kind of certificate, at least in Europe, is higher than 1%. An electrician will be required a certificate to handle home installations and to ensure he knows what the normative is. A lathe operator will require a certificate which ensures he will not harm himself. A nurse now requires a degree, it used to be just a specific formation. Many other jobs are available who do not require a degree.

                  I’m not really sure to what you refer to as privatisation of job opportunities.

            • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              There’s literally an entire demographic of americans that are having trouble with getting a job because they don’t have certification and it’s a nationwide problem causing insane amounts of debt for the general population, so unless there’s some kind of joke about the american healthcare system in there, then I don’t get what you’re saying.

      • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Only when you are talking about earning money. The smartest people out there are the ditch diggers and factory folk.

          • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m generalizing. There are more than two “very specific demographics”. More than two. Let’s call them proletariats for lack of a better word. The pursuit of knowledge for it’s own sake is what I was referring to. The “going to college and getting a good job” days are mostly over, unless you have an “in”.

            • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Hmm, while I agree that no person is more intelligent than another just because of their status and that people who do their job often know better than their manager, the reality is that wealthy people are often better educated, making them the smartest. We just, as you allude to, have a privatization of means of production, but also of education. I would say the highest collection of knowledge, and thus smartness, can currently be found with high earning white collar job. Like lawyers or doctors.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Formal education isn’t for education but for the formal paper. There is so much information on the web, just learn from that. Also, libraries often times have material other than physical books

    • sobchak@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Formal education can be good for guidance. For learning the “unknown unknowns” as a famous scholar once said. Also, in terms of career, networking is the most important thing. The world is built on nepotism, unfortunately.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    It only costs money to get the little piece of paper that says you did the thing and are therefore smarter. 🙃

  • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because knowledge is power.

    But also it depends. Learn on the job is a thing too in some industries, and in some people can do quite well for themselves here.

    It also costs money to make money, if you have a lot of it you can make it work for you and make even more than someone who doesn’t have it. This is why kids of rich ass parents get it so easy.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    It doesn’t benefit the ruling class if too many of the wrong people access education; they may get ideas.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Honestly, there isn’t hardly anything you couldn’t learn on your own. But what higher education provides is structure. It can be very difficult to actually follow through with the education if you do not have scheduled classes, exams you have to study for, deadlines for projects/exams, etc