You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Raemon comments on Overcoming the negative signal of not attending college. - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: James_Miller 16 February 2011 08:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (45)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Raemon 16 February 2011 10:25:06PM *  2 points [-]

Even assuming all your givens, why would this be a better alternative to college at signaling? College already works. And also sometimes teaches you stuff also. Prestigious schools are expensive because they have a high reputation, thus demand for their signaling is greater and they can afford to charge more. If you could simply inject signaling value into a program, you could just pick a random already-existing, cheaper college and do it with them, avoiding all the weirdness signaling that'd be going on here.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 February 2011 12:39:27AM 1 point [-]

Even assuming all your givens, why would this be a better alternative to college at signaling?

Efficiency. If a comparable screening procedure can be performed in one month then that is years of time saved.

Comment author: Raemon 17 February 2011 02:57:36AM 2 points [-]

Except there's a difference between dedicating your life to something for a month (Which you can often do without burning out) and doing so for years at a time.

The college I went to essentially had 40 hour work weeks and no summer vacation. I think that accomplished the "demonstrate work ethic" goal just fine. Plus I was actually learning things the whole time.

Comment author: James_Miller 16 February 2011 10:47:14PM 0 points [-]

The key part of the program is the 16 hours a day of simple math. A cheaper college could, of course, do this.

It's a better alternative to college mainly because it's cheaper.