I learned more about Napoleon Bonaparte from youtube than any book ive found or any class ive taken which only cover the subject briefly and topically. I did this for FREE from my living room on my own time.
Absolutely. I also created a system on how to extend that to where you can learn as much World History in 30 hours as people who spent 4 years on a Bachelor's Degree in it : ruclips.net/video/HSERcD9cK24/видео.html
I have some adjacent-level knowledge of academia in the US, and I think it is already being massively disrupted. Smaller, less prestigious colleges and universities are either closing outright or removing large chunks of their curriculum, with concomitant eliminations of tenured faculty positions. But I see two main sources of disruption that may not (directly) be 3rd Millennial Economics (3ME). 1) The demographic cliff and 2) the gradual societal realization that not everyone needs a college degree. Obviously, both effects are indirectly the result of 3ME, but remote learning per se doesn't seem like a threat as much as these 2 factors. That said, the more remote learning is incorporated into university curricula (as is happening) the more people will question the value of universities. Ultimately, what is driving this is the skyrocketing cost of education. Everyone has their theories about what may be causing it. (Ballooning administrations say people on the left or institutions soaking up available government cash say people on the right.) I've never seen an analysis that convinced me that either of those accounts for all education inflation, even within an order of magnitude. One factor I think has been overlooked, which is also an exponential, is the cost of creating and managing new knowledge. New knowledge increases exponentially, and that mean university curricula have to accommodate more and more content with exponentially increasing frequency. Creating the new knowledge itself has associated costs, and then all steps necessary to teach it has costs. I've never seen any analysis of this, but I think it could explain a great deal of education inflation as well as medical inflation.
I think a huge aspect of the cost is the perception that one cannot be successful without college. To some extent this is true - you need some sort of post high school education to get a job that pays over $20 an hour. If you’re not going into a high pay and high demand field, however, the ROI is actually pretty low if you do the math. But people don’t know that so colleges can jack up rates with near impunity as there’s not real point at which someone aspiring to the middle class says “that’s too much to pay.” In fact, even if college becomes literally unaffordable, the public will simply demand the government provide it. They could charge a million dollars a semester and the public will demand every student get that access. Add in that putting a butt in a chair in a college is dirt cheap and the victim cannot discharge the debt in bankruptcy and all the usual vetting procedures don’t happen. There’s no real admission barriers. If you can’t read or do math at a college level, no problem, there are remedial courses. You have terrible grades, no problem, everyone gets into college. And no restrictions on major. You can study philosophy, art, history or literature and nobody cares that you won’t qualify for a real job. The part that’s going to be hard to disrupt isn’t the education aspect. You can already get the information for virtually free if you are willing to pirate books. The hard part is breaking the certification monopoly university has over the marketplace. College won’t get cheaper until HR managers stop requiring college degrees for consideration. If something else starts counting (and to my mind, subject matter testing would likely work) then pretty much everyone will choose that alternative. Until that happens, people will still need a college degree to be employed.
any leftist worth his salt will tell you universities being private and for-profit incentives are the main problem and whats driving the cost up (literally the same as price gouging in market chains, literally its all because of privatization), and no "ballooning administrations" nonsense, if anything that also sounds like something a rightwinger would say lol
I just graduated, and a not insignificant amount of my peers are fucked. They got useless degrees and have loans. It’s an insane value proposition. The information is all online, and my generation took classes through zoom anyway, which kind of got rid of the networking aspect of college, which was the only real pulling factor.
This is what I mean. Too many people who profit from the existing system say things like "You can't put a price on a well-designed curriculum.", with no mention of whether there is ANY threshold where cost is just too high. The fact that this debt is non-bankruptable indicates it is a scheme of quasi-slavery designed to funnel more money to activists employed as bureaucrats and faculty of fluff departments. Even if one wants an accredited degree, an MS in Computer Science from GA Tech (a highly ranked school) is online for $5400 : ruclips.net/video/I3cLy7FTGkE/видео.html
Bryan Caplan says that if college was really about learning, then we would have started seeing minor disruption in the 1970s when it became possible for colleges to start mass producing video rentals of their lectures. He thinks that colleges will not be disrupted by RUclips or MOOCs for the same reason. Rob Henderson says that college prestige seems to serve some of the same functions that arranged marriages do in other cultures, while being less obvious and more deniable. It's normal and respectable to talk about how you want good career prospects for your kids, but it would be seen as weird and crass (in the US) to say that you want your kids to marry someone upper-middle class.
I agree that for the children of wealthy families, college will remain a luxury consumer good, and these people will always have enough money to pay. The top universities also have zero-tuition arrangements for low-income students. But outside of the top, the vast majority of students outside of the top 25 universities, unless they are studying something career-oriented, are being fleeced, and as this is the numerical majority, a massive decline in enrollment is imminent.
@@KartikGadaATOMbut then again, who will hire them? More and more jobs that don’t require skill are now requiring a degree. *Costco* requires college. Call Centers want college. Unless you go into the trades, not having a degree means work at such places as gas stations, low end retail, warehouses, chain restaurants, and delivery drivers. Until that changes, we’re stuck.
Google, Ernst & Young, and other tech companies don't require college. Elon Musk's companies often don't. And trades pay well, especially on top of not having college debt. See Mike Rowe's content.
@@KartikGadaATOM trades do pay well, but it’s not something everyone can do. Entrepreneurs do great, but not everyone can do that. Yes both can be done without debt, but it’s not something that anyone can pull off. A person who isn’t highly detailed isn’t going to be a good mechanic or technician or electrician. Someone who doesn’t have an extremely strong drive isn’t suited to being an entrepreneur. You have to break the logjam in the algorithms reading the resumes and the HR directors wanting college in all cases, the need for diplomas will continue.
The 'learn to code' meme annoys some people, but in reality, Computer Science can be learned at low cost (even with a degree), for very high employment prospects. Computer Science does require a high IQ, but that is always going to be another sorting factor.
Education, at _all levels,_ is a public good, which benefits absolutely everyone, including the wealthy. After WWII, great fortunes were made by corporations that had access to pre-qualified and pre-trained workers. Since the government had already paid a reasonable price for their education, corporations got those skills at a bargain. Now they must compensate workers sufficiently to pay for those overpriced educations in full. By insisting on minimal taxes, corporations ensure that they must pay premium prices for education and healthcare.
@@KartikGadaATOM I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that for those who choose a formal and credentialed education, it should be at worst a good value, and at best free. I'm not convinced that entry-level positions requiring specialized knowledge will be commonly available to non-credentialed people in significant numbers very soon. I'm also saying that in the past when higher education was subsidized, the actual total cost was much lower.
Oh, college was inexpensive relative to salaries of jobs available as recently as 1990. Colleges should be required to go back to that cost structure. However, universities are a place the government uses to generate make-work jobs for leftists, who are not even faculty but bureaucrats, which is how the government creates jobs for its activities, with the earnings of students for the next two, five, or ten years after graduation seized to subsidize this.
er... anyone who knows anything about the higher-ed bubble knows about the administrator bloat that are government-mandated jobs for favored (big govt favoring) groups : pbs.twimg.com/media/EN8wdgyWoAAZnHC.png
This disruption should multiplies and much faster should the culture and hiring practices of less prestigious companies also becomes more relaxed and less demanding of arbitrary academic requirements.
I'd just like to add that-between 1189 AD (the first regnal year of Richard I) through the late Middle Ages, Renaissance, Age of Discovery, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution-everybody agreed that the _Liberal Arts_ constituted 7 challenging academic disciplines. Viz., Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry, Logic, Music, Grammar, and Public Speaking. But now, the very prestigious _Johns Hopkins University_ offers a "Master of Liberal Arts" degree with positively no linguistic, mathematical, or scientific requirements! Rather, apart from 1 capstone and 1 core class, students get to choose 8 "electives" from a list including.... (I'm not making this up.) • _Race and Jazz_ • _Gender and Media_ • _Black Queer History_ • _Art since 1960_ • _Fakes, Lies, and Forgeries: A Collection of Fake News from the Flood to the Apocalypse_ Ever since we switched to the Prussian K-12 model, methinks that intellectuals have been taught _what_ to think, instead of _how_ to think.
Well to be fair the amount of knowledge since 1189 has increased tremendously, and because of this most of the topics in your first list can be taken as essentially standalone degrees. For example, someone with a Ph.D. in math with a specialty in Kahler geometry would know a lot about Kahler geometry, which is only a fraction of all subtopics of geometry despite itself being an incredibly rich and large subject. This person would likely only know at most an intermediate level of mathematical logic, and even less about topics in philosphy relating to logic. Their knowledge in logic would be quite small when compared to someone who specialized in mathematical logic instead. And why are you listing the courses in the second list as if they are somehow unworthy in some way? With the massively increased volume of knowledge which has been created since 1189, and the larger capability for more people to pursue the creation of knowledge, the natural evolution of creating new knowledge would be to pursue more niche subjects. It also seems like you cherry picked these courses out of the 49 electives listed. As for what reason you chose these courses in particular I don't really understand. Like why is the knowledge in these courses not good? Is the professor of any of your listed courses a bad professor? Is the content bad? If it is bad, then why is it bad? I do agree that US K-12 education all around is pretty garbage. Like the math curriculum alone is devoid of all creativity and is depressing. I also think that college in the US has become partially a scam due to its price, especially considering loans. Knowledge should be free.
I suspect that very few of your users understand the difference between the seeds being sewn for a new technology and the eventual harvest for that technology and that the point of no return is after the seeds have been sewn, not when they are harvested. I would urge you to address this in a future video. Examples might include the overwhelming concern people have over the energy AI uses and the seeds that have already been sewn for photonic computing, or the concerns many folks have regarding what they believe will be many decades long transition to renewable power and the seeds that have been sewn for utility scale batteries and another 90% drop in solar power cost.
That may be true. Exponents are the essence of any prediction. Regarding Solar, I was on to that way back in the early-mid 1980s when I was ten. But this is why economics also throws people off. I said in 2021 that by 2032, most world poverty will be gone outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. This is easy to predict, particularly when one accounts for how the bar for poverty keeps rising.
The point of no return is when humans begin integrating technology into biology and fueling the next stage of evolution. We are in the primitive stages of that process. We built an external memory source in that cloud internet. Now we are building external advance intelligence. Once we add the biological components to add to the human body. Over the next 10 to 20 years
When I grew weary of the used paperback on the Wars of the Roses I bought at Half Price Books I decided to simply watch the BBC documentary on the topic available on RUclips. After all, I’ve done enough reading already that I don’t feel it’s necessary to prove myself by always reading the book.
Wikipedia summaries of a book are often sufficient, and ChatGPT can make your own custom summaries for you. And yes, brief RUclips documentaries are very good. Some as short as 5 minutes tell the viewer everything.
Yes, but see the comment thread below where @crawkn says government is not doing this, since there is no legislation passed that one can point to. He is probably someone profiting from the status quo.
I hope you are right, Kartik. As an aside, do you have videos on depopulation or the agenda for it? I'm sure you've seen the behaviours, messaging and actors promoting it ...
Schools should focus on testing... thats already how IT certification works in the real world. You pay for the exam and the proctoring, not for the teaching. Teaching is commodified and democratized, not something large institutions can make serious money on. I guess another part of the responsibility would entail finding 3rd party teaching resources that adequately teach what one is testing, but thats pretty much it. The actual teaching will be a race to the bottom in terms of cost.
The exam and proctoring should be inexpensive, like present day SAT or GRE testing. Certainly not full university fees. But you are right. The problem is, in the US, there were court cases from 1971 that moved everything away from standardized testing.
If kids can download information using wearable neurotech- will school even be necessary? If school isn't even necessary then what do we do with the kids?
If anything, learning will be more fun (or at least less boring) so a lot of kids will find the day to be too short. Right now, learning is made boring and punitive in the Prussian classroom model that we have had for 160 years.
I learned more about Napoleon Bonaparte from youtube than any book ive found or any class ive taken which only cover the subject briefly and topically. I did this for FREE from my living room on my own time.
Absolutely.
I also created a system on how to extend that to where you can learn as much World History in 30 hours as people who spent 4 years on a Bachelor's Degree in it :
ruclips.net/video/HSERcD9cK24/видео.html
I have some adjacent-level knowledge of academia in the US, and I think it is already being massively disrupted. Smaller, less prestigious colleges and universities are either closing outright or removing large chunks of their curriculum, with concomitant eliminations of tenured faculty positions.
But I see two main sources of disruption that may not (directly) be 3rd Millennial Economics (3ME). 1) The demographic cliff and 2) the gradual societal realization that not everyone needs a college degree. Obviously, both effects are indirectly the result of 3ME, but remote learning per se doesn't seem like a threat as much as these 2 factors. That said, the more remote learning is incorporated into university curricula (as is happening) the more people will question the value of universities.
Ultimately, what is driving this is the skyrocketing cost of education. Everyone has their theories about what may be causing it. (Ballooning administrations say people on the left or institutions soaking up available government cash say people on the right.) I've never seen an analysis that convinced me that either of those accounts for all education inflation, even within an order of magnitude.
One factor I think has been overlooked, which is also an exponential, is the cost of creating and managing new knowledge. New knowledge increases exponentially, and that mean university curricula have to accommodate more and more content with exponentially increasing frequency. Creating the new knowledge itself has associated costs, and then all steps necessary to teach it has costs. I've never seen any analysis of this, but I think it could explain a great deal of education inflation as well as medical inflation.
I think a huge aspect of the cost is the perception that one cannot be successful without college. To some extent this is true - you need some sort of post high school education to get a job that pays over $20 an hour. If you’re not going into a high pay and high demand field, however, the ROI is actually pretty low if you do the math. But people don’t know that so colleges can jack up rates with near impunity as there’s not real point at which someone aspiring to the middle class says “that’s too much to pay.” In fact, even if college becomes literally unaffordable, the public will simply demand the government provide it. They could charge a million dollars a semester and the public will demand every student get that access.
Add in that putting a butt in a chair in a college is dirt cheap and the victim cannot discharge the debt in bankruptcy and all the usual vetting procedures don’t happen. There’s no real admission barriers. If you can’t read or do math at a college level, no problem, there are remedial courses. You have terrible grades, no problem, everyone gets into college. And no restrictions on major. You can study philosophy, art, history or literature and nobody cares that you won’t qualify for a real job.
The part that’s going to be hard to disrupt isn’t the education aspect. You can already get the information for virtually free if you are willing to pirate books. The hard part is breaking the certification monopoly university has over the marketplace. College won’t get cheaper until HR managers stop requiring college degrees for consideration. If something else starts counting (and to my mind, subject matter testing would likely work) then pretty much everyone will choose that alternative. Until that happens, people will still need a college degree to be employed.
any leftist worth his salt will tell you universities being private and for-profit incentives are the main problem and whats driving the cost up (literally the same as price gouging in market chains, literally its all because of privatization), and no "ballooning administrations" nonsense, if anything that also sounds like something a rightwinger would say lol
I just graduated, and a not insignificant amount of my peers are fucked. They got useless degrees and have loans. It’s an insane value proposition. The information is all online, and my generation took classes through zoom anyway, which kind of got rid of the networking aspect of college, which was the only real pulling factor.
This is what I mean. Too many people who profit from the existing system say things like "You can't put a price on a well-designed curriculum.", with no mention of whether there is ANY threshold where cost is just too high.
The fact that this debt is non-bankruptable indicates it is a scheme of quasi-slavery designed to funnel more money to activists employed as bureaucrats and faculty of fluff departments.
Even if one wants an accredited degree, an MS in Computer Science from GA Tech (a highly ranked school) is online for $5400 :
ruclips.net/video/I3cLy7FTGkE/видео.html
What we need is OPEN SOURCE EDUCATION!
Bryan Caplan says that if college was really about learning, then we would have started seeing minor disruption in the 1970s when it became possible for colleges to start mass producing video rentals of their lectures. He thinks that colleges will not be disrupted by RUclips or MOOCs for the same reason.
Rob Henderson says that college prestige seems to serve some of the same functions that arranged marriages do in other cultures, while being less obvious and more deniable. It's normal and respectable to talk about how you want good career prospects for your kids, but it would be seen as weird and crass (in the US) to say that you want your kids to marry someone upper-middle class.
I agree that for the children of wealthy families, college will remain a luxury consumer good, and these people will always have enough money to pay.
The top universities also have zero-tuition arrangements for low-income students.
But outside of the top, the vast majority of students outside of the top 25 universities, unless they are studying something career-oriented, are being fleeced, and as this is the numerical majority, a massive decline in enrollment is imminent.
@@KartikGadaATOMbut then again, who will hire them? More and more jobs that don’t require skill are now requiring a degree. *Costco* requires college. Call Centers want college. Unless you go into the trades, not having a degree means work at such places as gas stations, low end retail, warehouses, chain restaurants, and delivery drivers. Until that changes, we’re stuck.
Google, Ernst & Young, and other tech companies don't require college. Elon Musk's companies often don't.
And trades pay well, especially on top of not having college debt. See Mike Rowe's content.
@@KartikGadaATOM trades do pay well, but it’s not something everyone can do. Entrepreneurs do great, but not everyone can do that. Yes both can be done without debt, but it’s not something that anyone can pull off. A person who isn’t highly detailed isn’t going to be a good mechanic or technician or electrician. Someone who doesn’t have an extremely strong drive isn’t suited to being an entrepreneur. You have to break the logjam in the algorithms reading the resumes and the HR directors wanting college in all cases, the need for diplomas will continue.
The 'learn to code' meme annoys some people, but in reality, Computer Science can be learned at low cost (even with a degree), for very high employment prospects. Computer Science does require a high IQ, but that is always going to be another sorting factor.
Education, at _all levels,_ is a public good, which benefits absolutely everyone, including the wealthy. After WWII, great fortunes were made by corporations that had access to pre-qualified and pre-trained workers. Since the government had already paid a reasonable price for their education, corporations got those skills at a bargain. Now they must compensate workers sufficiently to pay for those overpriced educations in full. By insisting on minimal taxes, corporations ensure that they must pay premium prices for education and healthcare.
You are assuming education has to be via formal institutions like universities, and thus it has to be expensive. This is not true.
@@KartikGadaATOM I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that for those who choose a formal and credentialed education, it should be at worst a good value, and at best free. I'm not convinced that entry-level positions requiring specialized knowledge will be commonly available to non-credentialed people in significant numbers very soon. I'm also saying that in the past when higher education was subsidized, the actual total cost was much lower.
Oh, college was inexpensive relative to salaries of jobs available as recently as 1990. Colleges should be required to go back to that cost structure. However, universities are a place the government uses to generate make-work jobs for leftists, who are not even faculty but bureaucrats, which is how the government creates jobs for its activities, with the earnings of students for the next two, five, or ten years after graduation seized to subsidize this.
@@KartikGadaATOM What make-work jobs?
er... anyone who knows anything about the higher-ed bubble knows about the administrator bloat that are government-mandated jobs for favored (big govt favoring) groups :
pbs.twimg.com/media/EN8wdgyWoAAZnHC.png
This disruption should multiplies and much faster should the culture and hiring practices of less prestigious companies also becomes more relaxed and less demanding of arbitrary academic requirements.
I'd just like to add that-between 1189 AD (the first regnal year of Richard I) through the late Middle Ages, Renaissance, Age of Discovery, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution-everybody agreed that the _Liberal Arts_ constituted 7 challenging academic disciplines.
Viz., Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry, Logic, Music, Grammar, and Public Speaking.
But now, the very prestigious _Johns Hopkins University_ offers a "Master of Liberal Arts" degree with positively no linguistic, mathematical, or scientific requirements! Rather, apart from 1 capstone and 1 core class, students get to choose 8 "electives" from a list including....
(I'm not making this up.)
• _Race and Jazz_
• _Gender and Media_
• _Black Queer History_
• _Art since 1960_
• _Fakes, Lies, and Forgeries: A Collection of Fake News from the Flood to the Apocalypse_
Ever since we switched to the Prussian K-12 model, methinks that intellectuals have been taught _what_ to think, instead of _how_ to think.
Well to be fair the amount of knowledge since 1189 has increased tremendously, and because of this most of the topics in your first list can be taken as essentially standalone degrees. For example, someone with a Ph.D. in math with a specialty in Kahler geometry would know a lot about Kahler geometry, which is only a fraction of all subtopics of geometry despite itself being an incredibly rich and large subject. This person would likely only know at most an intermediate level of mathematical logic, and even less about topics in philosphy relating to logic. Their knowledge in logic would be quite small when compared to someone who specialized in mathematical logic instead.
And why are you listing the courses in the second list as if they are somehow unworthy in some way? With the massively increased volume of knowledge which has been created since 1189, and the larger capability for more people to pursue the creation of knowledge, the natural evolution of creating new knowledge would be to pursue more niche subjects. It also seems like you cherry picked these courses out of the 49 electives listed. As for what reason you chose these courses in particular I don't really understand. Like why is the knowledge in these courses not good? Is the professor of any of your listed courses a bad professor? Is the content bad? If it is bad, then why is it bad?
I do agree that US K-12 education all around is pretty garbage. Like the math curriculum alone is devoid of all creativity and is depressing. I also think that college in the US has become partially a scam due to its price, especially considering loans. Knowledge should be free.
i want to hear your thoughts on AI when it comes to disruption in the education system. In my college school AI is pretty hot topic rn
Think replacement instead of just disruption . there just isn't a need for 95 percent of the system post AI.
I suspect that very few of your users understand the difference between the seeds being sewn for a new technology and the eventual harvest for that technology and that the point of no return is after the seeds have been sewn, not when they are harvested. I would urge you to address this in a future video. Examples might include the overwhelming concern people have over the energy AI uses and the seeds that have already been sewn for photonic computing, or the concerns many folks have regarding what they believe will be many decades long transition to renewable power and the seeds that have been sewn for utility scale batteries and another 90% drop in solar power cost.
That may be true. Exponents are the essence of any prediction. Regarding Solar, I was on to that way back in the early-mid 1980s when I was ten.
But this is why economics also throws people off. I said in 2021 that by 2032, most world poverty will be gone outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. This is easy to predict, particularly when one accounts for how the bar for poverty keeps rising.
The point of no return is when humans begin integrating technology into biology and fueling the next stage of evolution. We are in the primitive stages of that process. We built an external memory source in that cloud internet. Now we are building external advance intelligence.
Once we add the biological components to add to the human body. Over the next 10 to 20 years
When I grew weary of the used paperback on the Wars of the Roses I bought at Half Price Books I decided to simply watch the BBC documentary on the topic available on RUclips. After all, I’ve done enough reading already that I don’t feel it’s necessary to prove myself by always reading the book.
Wikipedia summaries of a book are often sufficient, and ChatGPT can make your own custom summaries for you. And yes, brief RUclips documentaries are very good. Some as short as 5 minutes tell the viewer everything.
Can you cover the economics of Transit Orientated Development and Urbanism, or High Speed Rail?
It’s very a popular topic on RUclips.
Look up “The Great Courses” it’s audiobooks of college lectures. It’s basically college without the degree.
Yes, but far more advanced materials exist on RUclips, Udemy, etc. Not to mention AI as a learning accelerator.
Way, way overdue.
Government keeps propping it up, most recently with student loan bailouts. But the cost of this is rising exponentially.
@@KartikGadaATOM It's quite a racket.
Yes, but see the comment thread below where @crawkn says government is not doing this, since there is no legislation passed that one can point to. He is probably someone profiting from the status quo.
I hope you are right, Kartik. As an aside, do you have videos on depopulation or the agenda for it? I'm sure you've seen the behaviours, messaging and actors promoting it ...
Schools should focus on testing... thats already how IT certification works in the real world. You pay for the exam and the proctoring, not for the teaching. Teaching is commodified and democratized, not something large institutions can make serious money on.
I guess another part of the responsibility would entail finding 3rd party teaching resources that adequately teach what one is testing, but thats pretty much it. The actual teaching will be a race to the bottom in terms of cost.
The exam and proctoring should be inexpensive, like present day SAT or GRE testing. Certainly not full university fees. But you are right. The problem is, in the US, there were court cases from 1971 that moved everything away from standardized testing.
If kids can download information using wearable neurotech- will school even be necessary? If school isn't even necessary then what do we do with the kids?
If anything, learning will be more fun (or at least less boring) so a lot of kids will find the day to be too short. Right now, learning is made boring and punitive in the Prussian classroom model that we have had for 160 years.
Already emerging in something like the Jordan Peterson Academy
Jordan Peterson is just another grifter.
@@milliondollalichow so?
@@Eqeo100 ruclips.net/video/hSNWkRw53Jo/видео.html