I don't think this is heresy at all. I read this and just think you have a giant blind spot because you seem to be assuming that the way you learn is universally applicable.

I went to an unremarkable state school where I had classes with a hundred other students. Even my senior level courses were about a dozen to one teacher ratio. I still remember my professors and specific moments during their lectures when I was able to ask a follow up question which triggered that Eureka moment we're all looking for.

I wish I was able to just sit down with a textbook and learn a meaty subject but that doesn't work for me. I, and many others, need (or at least it helps a lot) the academic structure to learn effectively. The academic calendar, lectures, textbooks, homework, and other students you can study with all work in concert. The way you're dismissing all of that strikes me as really myopic.

There are many examination authorities but employers basically ignore all of them and have gone all in on college degrees as the signal for employment. In that way colleges are gatekeepers to higher level jobs, but they're hardly the only actor here.

Not a heresy at all. I went to two of the top 5 CS schools in the US and I barely recall anything I learned in there, almost everything I know ended up being self-taught later in a much more efficient manner than being student n.200 in a class taught by a researcher who barely speaks English and doesn't want to be teaching. The main upside was associating myself with those two brand names which later got me jobs and cofounders, but that's about it.

When I went to a public university in Europe, I realized after a month or two that lectures are a waste of time, and I stopped attending most of them. But the structure and guidance provided by the university allowed me to study things more efficiently than I could have done on my own.

I think the key is that universities are not schools. They are places of learning, not teaching. If you go to a university and expect to be taught, you are probably wasting your time.

And that vision is not really compatible with tuition fees, because they can easily turn you from a student to a paying customer.

You are correct, but universities did use to actually teach. SICP is still relevant 40 years later, and it was because the professors who created the class and textbook actually gave a fuck, knew what they were doing, and were still allowed to do their jobs. I really do think this is a recent phenomenon, but I have no idea how to get back what we once had from the parasite class.

University is too rushed. That's why you feel like the work is done on your own. Cause of course you have to acquaint yourself with the subject at your own pace. Once you become acquainted, that's when it becomes useful to have access to a leader in the field. But by that time you are writing your finals and preparing for the next semester.

Except for medical students, who require a teaching hospital and all its equipment.for their education

Except for EE and other engineering students, who require lab and other equipment for their education

Except for chemistry, biology, and other science students, who require chemistry equipment, etc. for their education. You get the idea.

Even for fields that require no specialized facilities, frankly, I don't see any Fields Medal or Turing Award winners that are self-taught nor do I have any reason to expect to see any in my lifetime.

Most received the Fields Medal or Turing Award are not "the common student who is not going to be a PhD" so you and GP agree on the importance of universities in that regard. In general I read what they say as solely relating to what I'd categorize as "undergrad or non-specialized track students".

I agree with you there is a lot universities have to offer students though. Your examples of equipment are a great highlight. On the other hand I think when you weight the ever growing cost of attendance with the amount of unique values provided it has been shrinking quite a bit, in favor of the "not providing much value" side. This is especially true for the relative lack of unique values brought for the vast majority of students during the first ~2 years of general education. It's difficult or impossible to get many of these organizations to let you just jump in at that point though.

Overall I think, for many at least, the biggest value is an environment which helps guide them to doing the self learning. Many (most?) can't just sit down to write and then follow their own multi year study plan and end up with something comparable to what they'd get out of going to a university, even if they end up spending the majority of their time there self learning. GP may well not be part of that group but I'm not sure their conclusions apply to those who are.

> Except for medical students, who require a teaching hospital and all its equipment.for their education

They're not really students in the normal sense, they fit more into the PhD category that I mentioned, since they need actual personal help.

> Except for EE and other engineering students, who require lab and other equipment for their education

I have an engineering master's from a world famous university where the lab work was pretty pointless. It didn't count for much if at all, and was more or less just entertainment.

If you were doing a PhD, you would do experiments where the outcomes were not a foregone conclusion. In undergrad, it's not any different from baking a cake, it ain't gonna go any differently than expected.

I suspect you'll learn more watching a video of someone doing the experiment, that way you are not concerned with trivialities like converting units and wearing safety goggles. Something like what NileRed does for chemistry.

> Even for fields that require no specialized facilities, frankly, I don't see any Fields Medal or Turing Award winners that are self-taught nor do I have any reason to expect to see any in my lifetime.

Well, that level of work requires a personal contact, like a PhD advisor. I am addressing undergrad work, which is fairly ordinary material that has already been well digested.

> I have an engineering master's from a world famous university where the lab work was pretty pointless. It didn't count for much if at all, and was more or less just entertainment.

For me personally, having a maker space and access to expensive equipment was how I learned to do useful things as an electrical engineer. Was it entertaining? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. In fact, the things I’ve had the easiest time learning were things I’ve done because they were inherently enjoyable.

> Make an examination authority. "Here is the national linear algebra test. Anyone who wants to try it, sign up, and come to this hall on this date." Everyone who passes, whether they studied at home or went to fancy U, gets a paper that says they passed it. Do it as a 12 year old prodigy or a 75 year old grandma, you get a diploma.

> Now, maybe there is already an authority that does this, I don't know. But it isn't very well known or authoritative.

Western Governors University operates this way. You can get a full, recognized degree that way (in a limited set of topics).

> I still think, in the end, the work is mostly done alone, in a pile of books, on your own time.

I feel compelled to link the quote from Good Will Hunting here, I will refrain. However I agree completely. I also went to a “great” school, and I learned everything from overpriced books on my own time. In fact, in my entire tenure of undergrad I never attended a full week of class, not even the first week.

Was it worth it then? Was there a benefit like meeting your classmates? I have to make the decision for my kids.

Absolutely worth it because of the environment that it put around me for four years and the peers who inspired and pushed me to do better (and also helped me grow socially, become more independent, etc).

There is nothing in adult life that's even close to that kind of environment and the growth that it fosters.

Although you have to go to a good school with great peers to experience these benefits.

Thanks that is helpful to me.

I mean, a lot of trades do have standardized tests. The LSAT for law school, the MCAT for medical school, and the CPA exams for accounting come to mind. I don't know why computer science hasn't organized in this manner, maybe because it's a younger field or maybe because there are simply too many people and employers don't care enough about having certified employees.

CS does have a lot of certifications, which are generally regarded as crap by most university-educated CS people. Part of the reason is that a lot of certifications test you knowledge with specific tooling, and that tooling may become obsolete rather quickly in the field.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the tests you talk about aren't valued particularly higher by their own fields. Most lawyers I know have commented that the bar exam [1] primarily tests material that is largely irrelevant to the actual practice of law, to a degree that scoring too highly on the exam tends to be seen as "you wasted too much time preparing for the exam."

[1] The LSAT isn't a test of whether or not you've mastered law school material, it's a test of whether or not you are allowed to be admitted to law school in the first place. The bar exam is the actual necessary certification to be a lawyer.

It's a younger field. A lot of self-taught people think they will be excluded (they wouldnt be). There is a deliberate effort by execs to lower the salaries of software developers by ensuring there are no barriers to entry and flooding the market which the vast majority of the workforce has been tricked into going along with.

That's the truest sounding heresy I've ever heard.

I also attended a well-known institution and this was precisely my experience of university. I stayed home and read the textbook, supplementing with materials online, hardly attending lectures at all.

I had paid for university almost entirely out-of-pocket with earnings from co-operative internships in software; when "real-life" problems started to rear their ugly head, the choice came down to incurring debt or working in a (still to this day) lucrative industry.

What was the point? Why join the rat race of my peers who would rush through the material, only for it to be forgotten amidst the torrent of next semester's information? Does this style of studying actually produce a level of erudition equal to or greater than one who obsessively pores over the literature at their own pace, taking their time to slowly digest and process and crystallize the information in their mind? Or have they just found the most expedient route past the gatekeepers of higher education and diplomas?

I would much rather do exactly what I did in university - read through the material on my own terms and take time to digest it at my own pace, but without the crippling debt. That said, I still very much view education as a privilege, open to those of financial means, who have the opportunity to put aside several years' worth of earnings and time to pursue academic studies, irrespective of practical application. I am reminded of a second-year philosophy professor who took half a lecture to explain how the purpose of higher education is not as a vocational school to bring one wealth and employment (taking shots perhaps at the career focus of the institution's co-operative program), but rather to give one a more fulsome perspective of the world and enrich their intellectual life - not in hopes of some mundane, worldly reward, but for its own sake.

Had I the wealth, I would love to go back to complete a degree, not for practical employment prospects or even prestige, but to (at least attempt to) feel intellectually whole. A merit based system of standardized testing that awards degrees based on examination performance would be right up my alley, for I could prepare myself to meet its demands at my own pace and according to my terms; I consider the hacker spirit of measuring the quality of a software solution not according to the attributes of its author (wealth, status, degree, or otherwise), but on whether or not the code works correctly and efficiently adjacent to this sentiment. For everyone else, there's debt - and I can't justify making that decision.

My university has a space mission ground station.

I wasn't an engineering major, I was a computer science major, but I still asked and was allowed to work evenings in the facility.

I got on the job training from experienced experts on orbital mechanics, the practical operation of spacecraft, and the infrastructure behind space flight activities. I also got to write some software that is used in the command and control of spacecraft.

Going to school gave me access to supercomputers and mainframes, practical hands-on experience that cannot be learned from a book.

Also, my university is somewhat unique in that it has an extremely rigorous writing requirements for all graduates, including creative and business writing. A comment I received multiple times at the beginning of my career is that my writing skills were extremely advanced compared to my peers. This is a double-edged sword because now, decades later, coworkers send me paragraphs to edit before being sent out.

I also minored in studio art, because as a young freshman I figured it was an easy A. Little did I realize that free and easy access to studios, models, screen printing equipment, and photography labs would lead to several lifelong hobbies.

My school also had telescopes I got to use as a member of the astronomy club, and amateur radio equipment far beyond my ability to afford as a member of the ham radio club. There is an exact and precise 0.0% chance that I would have ever gotten to even touch a 20" reflector, high quality CCD cameras, or sophisticated mounts and star trackers without going to school. Ditto for 1.5kW amplifiers and vast fields of specialized antennas for radio communications.

After I realized that staring at an IDE window all day was actual, literal, hell to me I transitioned to being an aerospace engineer. No degree, I just explained to people what I knew and did in school, what programs I had worked on, and they said "good enough, here's a board assembly drawing start spec'ing out space-rated micro- and nano-d connectors for it" and decades later I'm a senior principal engineer designing satellites.

Hell, just understanding what SWR is, what multiplexers and other RF terms meant, and knowing about polarization, propagation, and effective radiated power from my university ham radio club days went a long way to getting me to where I am today.

All of this is possible to learn autodidactically.

It would require a level of income (to gain access to the tools), foresight (to focus on specific subjects relevant to your goals), and drive (to have realistic goals laid out and to actually do it) not typically found in young adults, or old adults.

I assert it is easier, and outcomes are more favorable, if you pay someone to do all of this for you.

My perspective may be warped. I used the GI Bill and paid $0.00 for all of this. But if I had to pay the $54k it cost it would have been worth it 100 times over (I make a lot of money now).

When did you go to college? It might as well be that is the primary differentiator between your experience and others.

Online education ftw?

If you can drop 90% of administrators and real estate by moving online, student loans become a thing of the past. College becomes a halfway house commune for young people to who want to leave their parents nest.

So the way you fix a broken system is to replace it with something cheaper and better. The issue of course is that 99% of people who start online courses don't finish them. Universities provide motivation for learning, which is required for many learners.