Thread replies: 195
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13
File: serveimage.png (638KB, 748x500px) Image search:
[Google]
638KB, 748x500px
>People go to Academia to be taught something over four years they could learn in 6 months of self-study
Is this some kind of a joke?
>>
>>9206191
No, but this thread is
>>
>>9206191
>people go to college in America
>ISHIDDYDIGGY
>>
>>9206191
>self-study
That's the joke
>>
>>9206191
>tfw too dumb and need academia
>>
>>9206191
light reading of classics with 30-40 hours a week of slop like Stephan Molyneux and InfoWars is not 'self-study'
>>
>>9206191
>OP still doesn't get that Academia/University is worthwhile for the certificate and not for actual learning
>>
>op can't write more than a 4chan post
>>
>>
>>9206249
>go to college on scholarship because not a brainlet
>study classics for four years and make money doing dank finance internships over the summers
>make $180k a year first year after graduation
Seems all-around profitable to me.
>>
>>9206255
brainlet has to lie on the internet to make himself seem smart and thinks anecdotal evidence = comparable to rest of society!!! AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Post a tax receipt or bank account HAHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206191
I don't get it either. People are going to call me stupid for this, but I feel like that just proves my point. It is absolutely worthless going to college for anything other than something like being a doctor, engineer or lawyer.
But english? Philosophy? You could learn all that online, in encyclopedias, etc. The main benefit of university was that you had access to knowledge the common man didn't have. But that is no longer an issue. Everyone has access to most books and writings.
So what does college offer now? Now they have to justify wasting time and money on a degree with stuff like "it teaches you how to think" or "it makes you a more well rounded individual". These claims feel hackneyed and untrue. Most of the time it seems like academia causes people to double down into their echo chambers and not have their views challenged. We need to stop pretending that modern day academia is turning average people into philosophers. It's not.
Most people when reading this would just tell me I'm wrong, I'm dumb, I'm anti-intellectual. That I just don't "get it". But the truth is that going to university for most subjects has no worth anymore.
>>
>>9206191
>self-study
That's just light reading.
Academia is populated by experts.
>>
>>9206191
I can think of only one person I know who's a serious autodidact--mostly because learning anything worth learning takes a serious time commitment. They say the degree suggests you can stick with something for four years and that this is it's most useful validation, but you also (should) learn a lot.
The one guy was a CS/Math major and then lived at home for a year to learn biology. He went to grad school for more academia.
>>
>>9206304
And what do you think most of those experts do? They self-study themselves.
>>
>>9206191
What you learn in academia is how to think, not what to think.
6 months of self-study is how people end up believing that Zeitgeist movie
>>
LMAO AT ALL THE LOSERS IN THIS THREAD WHOSE ONLY ARGUMENT IS "y-you wont be able to, y-you wont have the time or motivation"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206215
unequivocally this
>>
>>9206318
MmmmmmmMMMMM! I love learning how to think like a middle-aged pedophile who constantly shoves his Liberal ideology in my face at every turn!
>>
>>9206326
t. brainlet with tall-poppy syndrome
>>
>>9206304
Undergrad detected
>Muh professor is SOOO smart, he has a paper hung up on his wall that tells me so.
>>
Most people really don't have the discipline to study something on their own to the level that being in college forces you to
>>
- you cant simulate the seminar sitting in your moldy computer chair
- you will not have access to a research library with everything written on your subject, including (most importantly current research)
- as your egotism throughout this thread makes quite clear, you cant really see the value of 2ndary scholarship until youve been slapped in the face by the unoriginality of your own "independent study" of the four or five classics you managed to learn about on wikipedia
>>
unlike you OP I value concepts as they apply to the world and not only insofar as they feel the best when they bounce around inside my head, therefore it's more productive to me to develop my understanding of them around other people who have prior knowledge of them because the typical medium to large sized university is a pretty effective submodel of a city, i.e. a density spike in the social field. The social field is where almost all concepts would mainly apply and therefore this is where it is best to go for a complete and valuable understanding of them.
>>
9206267
How about you do this same, then you can earn this (You)
>>
When I hear "self-study" I just think of someone playing with the lint in their belly-button
>>
>>9206318
>What you learn in academia is how to think, not what to think.
I keep hearing this but I'm not convinced. Reading on your own about logical fallacies, and skepticism, will probably teach you "how to think" better than any classroom. So please explain how college teaches an individual "how to think".
Oh, let me guess. It's not something you can actually express through writing, it's part of the "experience", you just HAVE to go through at least 4 years of a university to know how to think. Otherwise, no matter how much you do on your own, you are a hopelessly uneducated philistine.
Most people don't go to college to learn how to think, they go to get enough credits for a fucking degree to get a job. They don't care about the philosophical shit.
>>
File: shrugsorryehehe.png (92KB, 255x255px) Image search:
[Google]
92KB, 255x255px
>>9206287
i agree with you entirely, anon; however, i feel as though i'm doomed to be a poor NEET forever if i don't pursue a college degree. it's not about learning, anymore, it's about needing a degree so i can get a job and not die.
>>
>>9206339
If they don't have the discipline or interest to study on their own, then going to college still won't help them be a well rounded individual. They will, like the vast majority of college students, cram enough for the test to pass the class to get their credits.
Most college students are not scholars, they are crammers.
>>
>>9206343
You talk like university is some enlightened city of philosophers. It's more like high school 2.0 where people watch Netflix and talk about their hookups when the're not cramming for tests
>>
>>9206355
You learn how to write research essays in freshman year. Colleges make you do kinds of assignments that make you acquire learning outcomes. Self-learners probably wouldn't have the discipline to do these things by themselves and even if they did, they wouldn't hear appropriate criticism if they do them incorrectly.
>>
>>
>>9206355
i'll give you a hint: it has to do with understanding that thinking isnt just memorizing a list of """logical fallacies""" that you found on /pol/, and that skepticism is itself just an approach to experience.
when we say it teaches you how to think, we mean it teaches you not to get so pigeonholed into stupid, narrowminded views of what thinking consists in that you honestly believe you can figure it all out on your own.
it's not that "not matter how much you do on your own, you are a hopelessly uneducated philistine." it's that academia gives you the opportunity to encounter thinking that is radically not your own, that comes from another person who has spent ostensibly as much time on the text at hand as you have (your peers) and someone who has certainly spend a lifetime more on it than you have (the professor).
it shows you that a reading is basically always stupid and shortsighted on the first go around, even after extensive familiarity with "how to think." it teaches you to be "skeptical" enough not of things you encounter in the world, but of your own perception of them, which is always locally determined. it teaches you, once again, that memorizing a list of "logical fallacies" and being generally skeptical is not really thinking, and that thinking doesnt begin until you've spent at least 4 years, and probably more, repeatedly encountering and overcoming your own stupidity, mediated by other smart(er) people around you.
but you're going to shit all this out the window as things you can either "pick up," things my "liberal profs shoved down my throat," or things that dont really matter for your narrow and common-sensical understanding of what thinking about literature and philosophy consists in
that reaction is what makes you a hopelessly uneducated philistine: refusal to look beyond your own egoic, knee-jerk response to the world and the things you read.
>>
>>9206397
>they wouldn't hear appropriate criticism if they do them incorrectly.
LMAO
Why do you need to go to university to hear criticism when you can contact experts through free association ???
>>
>>9206409
LMAO
HE THINKS JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS AGAINST ACADEMIA THAT THEY MUST BE FROM /pol/ AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH BRAINWASHING YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH
KEEP SUCKING THAT ACADEMIC COCK
SENDING YOUR PROFESSOR 10s OF THOUSANDS IN MONEY TO SIT ON THEIR ASSES AND """""""TEACH""""""""" YOU SOMETHING YOU CAN LEARN AT HOME FOR FREE
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206412
what does free association mean in this context? what expert spends time dolling out thoughtful criticism for free? unless you mean by that that you are free to pay for the attention of experts, in which case id have to imagine some sort of institution that gathers experts into one place and sets a price for time with them. then you could have those experts teaching groups of people interested in hearing their expert criticism. i wonder what you would call that institution
>>
>>9206419
>triggered
try reading past the first sentence, snowflake
and everyone knows that the only reason anti-intellectuals place so much value on logical fallacies is because of that stupid image macro that's stickied on /pol/
>>
>>9206355
>So please explain how college teaches an individual "how to think".
By learning how to research and review information
>Reading on your own about logical fallacies
You mean reading the sticky on /pol/ which is obviously where you think you've found your education
>skepticism
Also a skill learned in academia
>Oh, let me guess.
How about, instead of guessing, you use real information to formulate your opinions.
You'd know this if you'd ever stepped foot in a classroom beyond middle school.
>>
>>9206419
they're going to feel better than people who don't spend a ton of on education no matter what
no point in this ;_;
>>
>>9206425
I DONT CARE ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES, IM NOT THAT POSTER
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
>>
>>9206423
THAT INSTITUTION IS CALLED FREE ASSOCIATION OF HUMAN BEINGS AND INDIVIDUALS THROUGH THE VAST COMMUNICATIVE MEANS IN FRONT OF US
SUCH AS OUR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW !!!!
>>
>>9206430
>>still triggered
if you didnt care about logical fallacies then you wouldnt be so triggered by my associating /pol/ with their valorization. but really, i wasnt associating anti-academic attitudes generally with /pol/, just the valorization of "logical fallacies." you'd recognize that, were you literate.
>>
>>9206409
I never claimed I could figure it all out on my own. I just claimed that university is not necessary to know "how to think" because I can expose myself to radically different sources, books and viewpoints.
And again, going to university has nothing to do with questioning your own perception. People don't need to go to college to understand that their perception is not always accurate.
>hinking doesnt begin until you've spent at least 4 years, and probably more, repeatedly encountering and overcoming your own stupidity, mediated by other smart(er) people around you.
But you are just again repeating the common theme, that it is *impossible* to know "how to think" unless you have spent 4+ years in academia for...reasons? You act as if being in college classes magically, drastically expands your mind into being a philosopher. It does not. I've been in college for 3 years and it is honestly nothing like what you are describing. People are not challenging themselves with the readings. They are not having enlightened debates. They are doing enough just to pass the class.
To people like you, you claim that university has some kind of magical property that bestows enlightened thinking, that would be impossible to pick up anywhere else. It is a complete fantasy.
Also, why do you keep putting "logical fallacies" in quotes as if it's somehow a silly concept? It's pretty clear that most college students don't take them to heart and get manipulated by them all the time.
>>
>>9206434
i wasnt aware i was talking to an expert in romantic poetry. great, ill upload my research article on byron and you can give me insightful feedback on it and suggest bibliographic material and further research directions for me, freely.
>>
>>9206438
HE THINKS LANGUAGE IS A MONOLITHIC CONCEPTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD ONE WAY
AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
>>
>>9206388
>You talk like university is some enlightened city of philosophers.
no, I don't--I'm not sure why you think I'm exclusively or even mostly talking about the students.
>>
>>9206443
WONDERFUL, I AM NOT A FAN OF BYRON VERY MUCH, I CARE NOT FOR ROMANTICISM BEYOND GOETHE
DID YOU KNOW SCHOPENHAUER WAS BORN ONE MONTH EXACTLY BEFORE BYRON????
AN INTERESTING FACT!!
>>
>>9206426
You are not giving any solid reasons for how college teaches you how to think. You are just assuming that the premise of "college teaches you how to think" is so inarguably correct that anyone who denies it is a moron. And yet you do not offer a single piece of information of what good thinking entails that I could not discover on the internet.
It's all just empty words. We need to admit that in modern times academia has become a joke.
>>
>>9206191
academia is fun you dumbass. of course it isnt practical - who the fuck wants to be practical?
>>
>>9206448
Because most of your (meaning the defends of academia in the thread) points about why college is so great is because it exposes you to "radically different viewpoints" and "having your views challenged" by your peers.
>>
>>9206441
>my opinions
Maybe you should listen to your own advice
>>
>>9206441
>But you are just again repeating the common theme, that it is *impossible* to know "how to think" unless you have spent 4+ years in academia for...reasons? You act as if being in college classes magically, drastically expands your mind into being a philosopher. It does not. I've been in college for 3 years and it is honestly nothing like what you are describing. People are not challenging themselves with the readings. They are not having enlightened debates. They are doing enough just to pass the class.
that's not what im saying at all. im not saying there's anything "magical" about the process. im saying that there is something drastic about reading a difficult text for no other reason than that you expect other people to have read it by next class, thinking you have a really good handle on it, and then having the professor show you something in five minutes that is completely different and vastly more interesting than the thing you spent 3 hours wrestling with 2 sentences to come up with.
im not saying that happens EVERY TIME. im saying it does happen, and that, yes, until it's happened to you several times, and until you've *learned* from it, you dont really know how to think.
if you can create some kind of reading group that can provide that experience, more power to you. but my point is that academia provides so many of those reading groups that the experience of repeatedly having your assumptions challenged is, as you say, mind-expanding.
yes, because "reasons." these are the reasons. there is nothing magical about this.
>To people like you, you claim that university has some kind of magical property that bestows enlightened thinking, that would be impossible to pick up anywhere else. It is a complete fantasy.
no. im not claiming that at all. im claiming that there is a very real situation that academia repeatedly provides that is not easily replicated.
im putting logical fallacies in quotes because it's trumped by idiots on this website as the be-all-end-all of "debating," whereas they're not really worth thinking about outside of, well, formal logic. that's for actual fallacies of logic: half the things on that chart are legitimate rhetorical techniques that some faggot with photoshop decided he didnt like.
>>
>>9206465
I don't think it's fair for you to include me in a group with other people who defend academia especially when I haven't specifically identified myself with those people. I'm not sure who you're quoting as I haven't said the words "radically different viewpoints" or "having your views challenged" anywhere in this thread.
>>
>>9206454
>You are not giving any solid reasons for how college teaches you how to think.
I just did. You can't just say "no you didn't" when I very clearly did. Your posts are the best proof in this thread that you don't know how to think.
>>
Friendly Reminder:
LMAO AT ALL THE LOSERS IN THIS THREAD WHOSE ONLY ARGUMENT IS "y-you wont be able to, y-you wont have the time or motivation"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206480
HE IS SO BRAINDEAD, PATHOLOGICAL AND CONTROLLED THAT HE THINKS THE COLLEGE WAY IS THE ONLY WAY TO THINK AND THAT DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS DON'T HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF LEARNING
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
THIS IS WHAT COLLEGE DOES TO YOU
IT MAKES YOU NOT ONLY STUPID BUT A DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL WHO WON'T ALLOW GENUINE, GOOD CHANGE
>>
>>9206480
No, you did not. The most substantive thing you said was "learning how to research and review information". But you don't need to go to college to learn how to do that.
>Your posts are the best proof in this thread that you don't know how to think.
Your smug tone is noted. You have no real basis for your claims that college teaches you how to think. You just presume it is an inarguable truth. So you just insult me by saying "you don't know how to think". You have no basis for your claim.
>>
>>9206474
and just as a corollary to all this, im not even encouraging you to adopt the thinking of your peers, in a class room or a reading group or anywhere else! im saying that having smart people who have just spent a lot of time thinking about the same things you've been thinking about at the same time around you, having conversations with them about nothing but the thing you've been reading, and even debating furiously with them to defend your viewpoint, is valuable and teaches you "how to think" in a way that "self study" and 4chan posting doesnt.
>>9206483
you're not advocating genuine good change, your whole program is "ahahaha" and "stop doing things i dont like and """free associate""" on 4chan instead"
>>
>>9206490
>you're not advocating genuine good change, your whole program is "ahahaha" and "stop doing things i dont like and """free associate""" on 4chan instead"
you're not advocating genuine good change, your whole program is "ahahaha" and "stop doing things i dont like and """how to think""" in academia instead"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
>>
>>9206494
why would i be advocating "genuine good change" when a. i dont even know how thats being used in this context b. the institution im defending already exists and c. the proponent in this thread of "genuine good change" (you) is an obdurate bully with nothing to contribute but ironic paraphrase and "hahahaha"
>>
>someone asks how college teaches you how to think
>people reply "the fact you have to ask this just shows you don't know how to think"
thats bullshit circular logic and you know it
>>
>>9206502
>and c. the proponent in this thread of "genuine good change" (you) is an obdurate bully with nothing to contribute but ironic paraphrase and "hahahaha"
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
THIS IS WHAT ACADEMIA DOES TO YOU
MAKES YOU WEAK AND LIMP-WRISTED!!
>>
File: 1462205251730.png (16KB, 492x336px) Image search:
[Google]
16KB, 492x336px
>People go
>>
>>9206489
>But you don't need to go to college to learn how to do that.
Explain how your learned to research and review information on your own. Explain how you found expert criticism of your work, ideas and methodologies, indeed, any experiments you've performed, outside of academic circles.
>Your smug tone is noted.
>Oh, let me guess. It's not something you can actually express through writing, it's part of the "experience", you just HAVE to go through at least 4 years of a university to know how to think.
You started it, shit-for-brains.
>>
>>9206507
>implying i didnt put that snowflake comment as part c to bait you into ignoring my objections at a and b and only replying to the lowest hanging fruit
this is what 4chan does to you: makes incapable of reading things you dont know how to disagree with
>>
>>9206515
It's called sci-hub and libgen, brainlet.
>>
>>9206518
AHAHAHAHAHA
THAT BACK-PEDALLING
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
Embarrassing.
>>
>>9206508
fine, but: >>9206519
no one has even attempted to address this argument.
one guy has: >>9206441
but he just glossed over the reasons given and rephrased them as "magical" and "fantasy," without actually addressing the content of the argument
for people so invested in logical fallacies, you sure do like committing them
>>
>>9206519
You mean those repositories of works written by academics?
>>
>>9206524
>and he still doesnt address the objections
>>almost as though he doesnt know how to think his way through them
Verdict: Can't Write. Can't Think. No Discernible Talent.
>>
I image that effective self-study would probably take twice the amount of time that learning with an instructor would.
>>
>>9206532
Yes, those millions of journals written by people paid by MY taxes and those millions of journals written on writers who wrote in their free time.
Waiting for your dumbass reply, brainlet.
>>
>>9206538
>PFFF academia is useless, I can get all this information on my own
>PLEASE academics, give me your papers!
lol
>>
>>9206541
Wow, epic strawman.
Looks like you don't know how to think!
>>
>>9206538
endowments for universities are at an all time low, and within those universities funding for the humanities are at an all time low
so you have two choices: you're interested in studying science, in which case, sure, a small amount of "YOUR taxes" paid for that research. but to really study science you need to do so in a research environment, ie a laboratory, which are usually made accessible to students at, a ha, universities.
on the other hand, you might be interested in the humanities, but then you'd have to acknowledge that most the money going to those departments are paid for by private individuals, or scholarships funded, again, by private individuals, or corporations. so in that case you're flat out wrong, and a thief.
>>
>>9206545
accurate strawman, you mean
>>
>>9206546
>and a thief.
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
ACTUALLY LAUGHING AT LOUD AT THIS ACADEMIKEK
AHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206546
and, not for nothing, with the exception of journals published by university presses, subject to my points in the previous post, a lot of research is published by private journals which are funded by donations and their subscribers. so again, thief.
(note, by the way, that i dont really care about being a thief or not, but you are the one who raised the point about property and ownership, and hence thievery in the negative, by the quip about "YOUR taxes.")
>>
>>9206508
is anyone able to think about this argument? any one at all?
>>
>>9206287
I feel that's true for a lot of people since I've had a lot of friends become more conceited. Though in my personal experience it made me a depressed wreck who doubled majored in business and philosophy and I literally cried myself to sleep the night I bought an expensive car without needing a loan contemplating if I'd become a shallow person.
>>
defenders of academia in this thread: calm, collected, able to contribute to discussion by justly interpreting the claims of their opponents and responding with objections that add new material
detractors of academia in this thread: cretinous, immature, unable to contribute to discussion due to uncharitably and insensibly misinterpreting the claims of their opponents, reducing them to absurdity (thus committing a well-known logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum or strawman), and responding defensively, adding nothing new to the discussion
>>
>>9206570
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>HE FELL FOR THE CALM DISCUSSION RESULTS IN CONDUCIVE CONCLUSIONS MEME
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206573
>fell for the "meme" meme
>>
>>9206574
Your time is coming to an end.
I will laugh with raised fists beating upon you the day your institution is brought down.
Go on, enjoy your pseudo-intellectual moment of scoffing, what is coming is a great dawn and you will be one of the victims! Go on, yell! Let your voice flutter and croak! You will be the very first of victims and the very last of those remembered.
>>
>>9206587
pathetic
>>
>>9206590
Yes, you are and your time shall soon come to an end.
>>
>>9206593
>i know you are but what am i
stop, really. you're betraying the brutality of your earlier posts
>>
>>9206608
That "HAHA" poster isn't me, friend.
I think you might be...what's it called...oh yes! Paranoid...
>>
>>9206617
>fell for the identity without difference meme
>>
>>9206287
You go to college for connections and for "the college experience"
>>
>>9206646
Watch me connect this fist to your face!
>>
>>9206215
>not an argument
but seriously, Molymeme is trash. Watch his Introduction of Philosophy for the lulz
https://youtu.be/t-G7D1Wbqcg
>>
>>9206409
>i'll give you a hint: it has to do with understanding that thinking isnt just memorizing a list of """logical fallacies""" that you found on /pol/
>when we say it teaches you how to think, we mean it teaches you not to get so pigeonholed into stupid, narrowminded views
kek
>>
File: 201612132032462259.jpg (278KB, 801x887px) Image search:
[Google]
278KB, 801x887px
>>9206191
Self study is an absolute fucking meme. John Milton, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Foucault, Buddha, Aristotle, Hegel, Goethe etc etc etc ALL had extreme levels of either formal education, or private tutors teaching formal education.
>>
>>9206287
I study computer science, but without being able to take college courses, I don't think high school really set me up to be comfortable enough to confront the humanities. It could be just that I'm more mature, but at 17 I definitely wouldn't have been able to read a lot of the books I have no problem jumping into now.
> Now they have to justify wasting time and money on a degree with stuff like "it teaches you how to think" or "it makes you a more well rounded individual". These claims feel hackneyed and untrue. Most of the time it seems like academia causes people to double down into their echo chambers and not have their views challenged. We need to stop pretending that modern day academia is turning average people into philosophers. It's not.
I agree with that. I am at a state university and there is almost zero general discussion in class and most people have no intention of taking the material serious enough to actually engage with it.
It's really what you make of it though, which is sort of the problem since most people just choose a major and never look at anything outside of it and tend to get wrapped up in the principles and ideologies of their major. However I think you can actually get a decent education if you take general education requirements seriously and sample many different fields to get a broader sense of the world
Like I said earlier I found it hard to broaden my direction in self-study without any guidance, so if you use education to just get your foot in the door for multiple disciplines that would be the best way to do it in my mind.
>>
>>9206670
LMAO
HE THINKS THAT THE INCREASED ACCESS TO INFORMATION VIA THE INTERNET AND LONGER LIFE EXPECTANCY DOESN'T REMOVE THIS PROBLEM OF FORMAL EDUCATION
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP
ACADEMIAKEKOLDS ARE SO BAD AT MAKING ARGUMENTS
>>
>>9206681
try to read adam smith, which is arguable written in a different language than english, or get through Capital 1-3 without a tutor is just fucking dumb, and you're just going to fuck it up.
>>
>>9206532
>You mean those repositories of works written by academics?
>Academia was useful and brought information to us in the past
>which means that we need it now, and there is no other way despite all of that information being available
The argument is for present day academics. Not what it has brought in the past. You cant go 'see what it has done' because nobody is arguing about that. The argument is that TODAY there is no value in undergrad because it does nothing more than you could not provide for yourself.
>>
>>9206687
the value of undergrad is direction. if you self-study you might spend 6-12 months reading and writing about a sub-field of law, anthropology, political sciense, finance, physics etc without knowing it is entirely irrelevant.
remember, people like me born late in the years start undergrad at age 17, you think I knew which books and authors to learn just with some google search?
>>
>>9206685
I've read Chaucer in the original Middle English without issues. I think I can handle Smith.
>>
>live in backwater
>parents tell me my only option is to attend Uni
>while at Uni meet interesting people
>become exposed to new ideas
>learn how to function in social settings
>make connections and secure potential future career paths
I'm not complaining. University 100 percent beats my other options.
>>
undergrad basically teaches you how to self study
only stupid people think you can skip some form of undergrad. After undergrad you have enough basis of the direction of your field you could realistically self study
>>
>>9206685
LMAO, IVE READ THE WEALTH OF NATIONS AND THE FIRST VOLUME OF CAPITAL WITH NO PROBLEM WITH LOADS OF SECONDARY SOURCES
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE JUST A BRAINLET
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>9206710
I can't imagine you'll just figure out things like smith founded social theory just by reading smith, and how then marx was in a dialogue with smith, and then weber was in a dialogue with marx, and then the wall street journal is Smithian after all that, and when you do an empiricist analysis of WSJ article language for a thesis you'll have to know this.
That;s like 10 books, that a prof can just tell you.
>>
>ALL THESE GRAD/UNDERGRAD STUDENTS TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR WASTED TIME AND MONEY THROUGH THE ARGUMENT THAT UNIVERSITY TAUGHT THEM "HOW TO THINK"
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA
IS THERE A MORE EMBARRASSING SUBMISSION OF STUPIDITY?
>"I WOULD ACCEPT YOUR WAY BUT I REJECT YOU BECAUSE I WAS TOO STUPID AND MUST NOW DEFEND MY IDIOTIC DECISIONS IN LIFE AND PAST STUPIDITY."
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>
>>9206741
what's wrong with you?
>>
>>9206755
MORE LIKE WHAT ISN'T
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9206759
what the fuck is your problem
>>
What book should I get to learn:
>German
>French
>Greek
>>
File: bill the butcher.jpg (166KB, 720x479px) Image search:
[Google]
166KB, 720x479px
>>9206287
I agree with you anon
>>
>>9206191
Slow-learning is better instilled and mastered than fast learning, which is obviously rushed and thrown together with little no meditation.
Luckily this thread is b8.
>>
>Becoming a doctor after 6 months of self-study
>>
Serious self-study requires insane amounts of discipline. I don't think most so called autodidacts are even aware of this. It requires you to be at least ten times more vigilant and harder on yourself than for a university degree precisely because you don't get your progress validated by a professional. This is HUGE. You have to be your own authority. Do you realize how HARD this is if you aren't a natural born genius?
But most people turn to self-study exactly because they don't want to be challenged this way. They read their favorite philosopher or breeze through mathematical proofs without doing them on their own DAILY (no you alibi proofs don't count) or trying to come up with a coherent and systematic counterargument to that very philosopher -- as well as the ones they hate and disagree with but forced themselves to read-- EVERY. HECKIN. DAY! And I don't blame you! This is brutal stuff and why would you want to do such a thing instead of being the typical """"I just read and accumulate knowledge bro muh high iq bro""" nincompoop? THAT'S comfy. Self-study ISN'T.
One one hand there is no one assigning you these tasks. Conversely, doing "anyways" without knowing the reason nor sensing an inner necessity for your actions, well, that pretty much borders either on schizophrenia or plain self-loathing.
Did I manage in my shitty English to get across what a superhuman feat it is to make progress in self-study without self-destructing?
Are you or are you not capable of constantly criticizing what you (think you) have learned? Capable of reading what you don't want to read, proving what you don't want to prove, critiquing what you don't want to critique? Not for being hard on yourself as an end in itself but as a means to ascend to a plain that is equivalent to a decent phd in your field?
If yes and only then self-study is for you. Everything else is merely exercise in masturbation and escapism. Sorry.
>>
>>9206811
X for dummies
>>
>>9206949
Will it get me to a decent reading level?
>>
>>9206191
>study by self
>apply for job
>oh you're educated? where's your proof
>uhh
and that's the entire reason why you go to college
if you just want to learn for fun or for a hobby then yeah, the autodidactic approach makes more sense
>>
>>
You go to uni to get an easy engineering degree and then you study the real stuff in your free time.
Using "self-study" as an excuse to just be a NEET is the real joke.
>>
>>9207052
>He actually thinks it's better to slave away doing something you dislike for four years rather than condensing that to 6-12 month self study and complete freedom being able to enjoy anything you want and without stress
Lmao, you're meming right? Right?
>>
>>9207059
Not knowing your future is far more stressful.
>>
>>9207032
>oh you're educated? where's your proof
Sure.
>here's my acclaimed project/app/book enjoyed by thousands of people
>here's my thesis which made it into three different journals and won a prize
>here's a letter of recommendation from five different professionals
And so on. Self-study doesn't preclude anyone from success, socializing or going into the world. You suffer from cognitive dissonance because
1. Almost nobody takes self-study seriously to the extent that they will ever achieve anything (note)worthy to others. This has nothing to do with the thing in itself.
2. Not everybody can be a winner and this is bad because it creates envy so self study is always "just a hobby"
3. Most people choose self-study because they need it easy (they make it easy), not because they need it hard and challenging
>>
>>9207040
>t. Brainlet
You know damn well if we were to sit down and I'd cross-examine you about your "knowledge" and made you put it to the test you would fail miserably.
You are one in a million bucko.
>>
>>9207061
>He actually thinks he needs academia to remove his ailments and feed his desires
>>
>>9207071
One genius in a million brainlets, yes.
>>
>>9207066
>here's my acclaimed project/app/book enjoyed by thousands of people
some fields, like programming, are a bit more forgiving for people who don't have formal education because you can start your own projects without it, but in most cases finding work or getting involved in research is going to be far more difficult if you don't have a degree or some kind of certification
is it possible to be successful as an autodidact? sure, but it doesn't work for everyone or for every profession
you don't see doctors who are completely self-taught, for example
>>
>>9207059
>6-12 month self study and complete freedom being able to enjoy anything you want and without stress
That is wankery my friend.
>>
>>9207089
No, it isn't, friend.
I've met people whose entire degrees cost four years of study which I was well acquainted with in just one year of study.
You don't need academia. Wake up!!!!
P.S. my nickname is good will hunting
>>
>>9206729
You know, you could just get that same knowledge watching lectures on youtube too.
>>
>>9207086
>some fields, like programming, are a bit more forgiving for people who don't have formal education because you can start your own projects without it, but in most cases finding work or getting involved in research is going to be far more difficult if you don't have a degree or some kind of certification
I agree with you but obviously that's because most people are simply not talented enough to stick out otherwise. They need to be "dragged along" by their certifications. Sad state of affairs. Most people are not where they should be.
>is it possible to be successful as an autodidact? sure, but it doesn't work for everyone or for every profession
Because success doesn't work for everyone! But what is a person trying then to accomplish when they apply for a job as a self-learner? We have been conditioned to think of learning as jumping through hoops, meeting the requirements. It's terrible. Knowledge should speak for itself through what you create.
>you don't see doctors who are completely self-taught, for example
Well yeah but that's just a matter of ethics. 1-800-Come on son.
>>
>>9207100
>I've met people whose entire degrees cost four years of study which I was well acquainted with in just one year of study.
See you in five years at the Nobel's!
>>
>>9206287
>uni is an echochamber
I really don't get where this idea has come from. I assume you have either never been or never engaged at uni, because it is full of the most enraging people just waiting to get into a delicious argument.
Not to mention all the assessment, which is basically non-stop clashes of opinion about writing style and ideas.
>>
>>9207118
>HE THINKS I CARE ARE ABOUT THE PRIZES OF SOME SWEDISH NERD
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
>>
File: images (14).jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search:
[Google]
3KB, 160x160px
>>9206452
Jesus christ...
>>
>>9207125
How do you fill your days, man? Genuinely curious.
>>
>>9207100
>I've met people whose entire degrees cost four years of study which I was well acquainted with in just one year of study.
You think of education as something you become acquainted with?
What is your area of study if I may ask?
>>
>>9207134
Frogposting and jacking off to Feynman.
>>
>>9207140
Surely you're joking!
>>
>>9206287
College worked when it was for training the priests, the gradual transition from theology + philosophies, natural philosophy + philosophy, and then finally into a secular career program stripped off most of what had previously justified its existence, and then when that career program became nigh universal it just became a cultural relic that is still around simply because it is too profitable to discard.
In a world that made sense higher education would consist of Theology/Sciences/Philosophy and would consist only of people who had a genuine passion for these things, while career prep for the overwhelming majority of things like business majors and certification programs would be taken care of by the employer. This would keep higher education as Higher education and the vast majority of people out of it.
Unfortunately because of affirmative action laws employers now need to provide concrete reasoning for their decision not to hire Harambe over other applicants, and college certifications have come to be that reasoning. So the universal college scheme comes about because the employers get the double benefit of not having Negroes polluting their work environment and having their ass covered legally on that fact by the absence of higher education among Negro applicants. With the for profit school system this also becomes a way to harvest massive amounts of money out of every person who comes of age in a middle class environment.
>>
>>9207183
Not for long! Those unis got affirmative action too.
>>
>>9206339
>Most people really don't have the discipline to study something on their own to the level that being in college forces you to
In my case this is true, for my own I wouldn't have learned shit, but in college...
>>
>>9206287
I think a really good teacher can change your life and can speed up your development dramatically. Imagine a person that could indicate your biggest flaws and also what you could do to correct them after some time of acquaintance. That's what a teacher ideally should be and I feel people of this caliber are way easier to find in universities.
But I agree with you that the standard "industrial" college education is nearly useless. You're there for the degree and for the networking.
>>
ITT: people who don't go to a global top 5 uni
>>
Self-study isn't the problem, self-complacency is the problem.
>>
>>9206191
>>People go to Academia to be taught something over four years they could learn in 6 months of self-study
Silly crypto-frog. The four to five years are preparation for doing your own research. Universities have the resources and manpower to help you with that. They also need to see a degree. If you are underwhelmed by the curriculum during those four years nobody is stopping you from self-study while you are there.
>>
>>9206712
>not self-studying through high school
>>
File: 3-martini-lunch-anyone-01509fdf-sz850x1275-animate.jpg (606KB, 850x1275px) Image search:
[Google]
606KB, 850x1275px
>>9206191
Show us how you've transcended the academics through your self-study, Autodidact.
Convert us with a show of competence.
>>
>>9207235
>Going to the SJW haven of the world: Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Yale or any other university for that matter
AHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>9206721
great then you could provide an excellent thesis with bibliography on their difference regarding the concept of nature? i dont need you to develop the whole argument, just a summary of your stance and the secondary references
>>
>>9206741
>of two options, i have tried but one. that's how i know that the people who have tried both and assented to the one i havent tried, are wrong
>>
Self-students: what is your daily schedule? weekly reading load in page count? And how much writing do you do on the things you read?
>>
>>9206191
>Live in a country where the state pays you to study
>Study things I like, get money from the state, approvement from my family and peers as well as a degree
>Would've wanted to learn these things regardless
come at me
>>
>>9208323
Wake up, read some classics for an hour. Go on 4chan, YouTube etc. In the afternoon if there is some time, read some more classics. Work on my novel (post-postmodern). Do this every day, live at home forever.
>>
But the best thing about uni is that it gives you a number of years where you can focus on that subject almost singly (and professors can be a huge help if you get a good one)
It's hard to study seriously if you're a full time wagecuck. So you saying that you can do 4 years of material in 6 months is pretty suspect in the first place. You can do the course work and independent shit at uni as well, so if the course content doesn't fit that just means you have more time to do independent study.
Of course if you're an americlap or something there is the problem of debt which kind of negates a lot of this, but if you live in a first world country where uni is free or practically free it's not a problem.
>>
>>9206221
This is objectively false
t. Going into academia
>>
>>9208307
hi i haven't posted in this thread yet, and i've been thinking about this..
essentially, it seems to me that the usefullness of unis are derived from having access to resources like library, scholars, etc. and having assignments. if you use the resources and try hard on your assignments, which then get feedback, uni seems very helpful... essentially, you have someone who can always give you feedback on the things you're doing wrong and you're forced to produce and create things, have thoughts, write essays on them, etc. which i think most self study students don't become proficient at..
i recently just realized that i'm extraordinarily mediocre at these things, though i believe i could improve with facility. in order to get good at these things, you really do have to produce, have ideas, etc.
just a side question, i don't have the option of going to uni right now, how do you think i could get betters at these things on my own? judging my own work doesn't seem to be as productive.. do you think there is any substitute for uni?
>>
>>9206339
Hate to say it but this. At least for me. Deadlines motivate me and I've learned thanks to it. I've had to read books that have sparked my interest in literature. Studied sciences that made me more interested in the world around me and had to engage my brain on a regular schedule.
If had to work a day job shortly after high school, I would have dumbed down significantly due to pure laziness and the distractions of responsibilities.
Obviously the college system in America is overpriced and structured inefficiently but that doesn't make continuing your education a bad thing. Pretending like those who deserve to study are only those with the utmost autismal dedication and self pride is nonsense.
>>
>>9208307
>please respond based on my criteria and academic teaching
Not even Nietzsche did that, fucking retard.
>>
>>9208355
sorry for my english by the way
>>
>>9208377
it's not his criteria lol.. it's the criteria of academia, that's his entire point. you're an enlightened self-teacher but if you were tasked with writing a paper for serious academics you would fail, and these standards have been adopted for a reason; they are the best way to do things.
>>
>>9208387
The whole point of the OP is to reject that criteria, you stupid fucking brainlet and no they are not the best way to do things.
Embarrassing!
>>
>>9208392
man you are not very smart, that isn't the point of op's post at all.. op is saying that going to unis is inefficient and you can learn the same things on your own, the other guy is talking about academic standards of communicating information.
you would prefer to have standards of intellectual communication where people aren't forced to have rigorous opinions defended with research, with a bibliography, so that you may look at what they looked at, see how they got their opinion, and then question whether you agree with them or not? how would you like an alternative to be?
academia in the sense we're talking about it imposes rigid guidelines on acceptable thought, based on evidence... so, once again, how would you like an alternative to be?
>>
>>9206570
This post is a prime example of the arrogance and delusion you people have. You probably dont even realize that the guy typing in all caps is just a troll meant to make the detractors look bad. The intelligent posts I made about why academia is bullshit in modern times were not "misinterpreting claims" whatsoever.
Maybe you really DO need to look at the sticky on /pol/ because it sure seems like you need a refresher.
>>
For people who say academia "expands your mind" and offers "radically challenging viewpoints", explain why certain types of discussion are banned in colleges, such as the connections between race and IQ or sex differences in the brain that could possibly lead to different rates of achievement. For instance, when trying to determine why men outnumber women so much in the STEM fields, you will be allowed to discuss many theories - oppression, patriarchy, how culture dis-encourages women, how society's expectations may effect their interest in STEM - but there is one thing you are not allowed to suggest, and that's the fact that maybe men are just plain better at these fields, while women are better at some others like languages, and this is due to biological differences.
It's not that you need to provide a good argument for these claims: it's that they are straight up not allowed, they are not even on the table. How can you call college a place of critical thinking if some subjects are off the table?
>>
>>9208355
best substitute i could imagine is organizing some kind of reading group for the texts your interested in. working in the writing aspect would be more difficult, but you'll at least be able to work through difficult material in a communal setting, which is just as important
>>
>>9206343
The superfluous language of your text is a testament to the true quality of education that you benefit from in adult daycare.
>>
>>9208377
yeah he did. he was a top rising star in philology, one of the most densely "academic" fields in the history of the academy, before he became the philosopher poet we know him as. how do you think he was able to so brutally coruscate plato and kant throughout his works? by reading a few pages in the morning and sharing memes in the afternoon? he knew them both inside and out, because he studied them rigorously in, you guessed it, an academic setting
>>
>>9208424
>you would prefer to have standards of intellectual communication where people aren't forced to have rigorous opinions defended with research, with a bibliography, so that you may look at what they looked at, see how they got their opinion, and then question whether you agree with them or not? how would you like an alternative to be?
Correct.
Oh, what's that? You believe in a 'method'?
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Go on, buddy, define your criterion for evidence AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>
>>9208538
Nietzsche was self-taught, pleb.
>>
>>9208544
absolutely, biographically inaccurate. plebe.
>>
>>9208551
LMAO
HE THINKS JUST BECAUSE A LECTURER GIVES A LESSON THAT THEY HAVE TAUGHT YOU SOMETHING HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA
>>
File: 1483996209080.jpg (82KB, 900x900px) Image search:
[Google]
82KB, 900x900px
You can learn all you want in self-study if you're disciplined enough, but most people, especially people on 4chan, have nowhere near the level of discipline to gain college level education on their own with zero help.
Have you actually completed and gained anything from self-study, or is it one of those things you'll start "tomorrow"?
>>
>>9208578
I studied the entire history of philosophy and I am well versed in formal and modal logic.
Next question!
>>
also, how do people in this thread self-study seriously? when i took a gap year and lived with my mom i studied foreign languages for 9+ hours a day, but how can you do this for any sustained amount of time? how can you support yourself while still studying a serious amount? i don't see how you can work 40 hours a week and still study seriously.
>>
>>9208594
Do you have any proof of such? I can easily claim that I have studied and fully grasped all fields of science and mathematics but that would just be empty words.
>>
>what is networking?
>what is being skilled in a professional environment?
Do you think any STEM related field, health care, lawyers,and many more can be learned by yourself without any mentorship and get a degree.
Would you get a job without any experience in those fields and being self-taught at home?
>>
>>9206191
people go to school to socialize and be taught
>>
>>9208620
None whatsoever, but I don't care if you don't believe me!
That's the beauty of self-learning!
;)
>>
File: 1488952435659.gif (1MB, 257x200px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 257x200px
>>9208683
>>
>>9208673
We're not talking about shit like being a doctor or lawyer. We're talking about stuff like english, psychology or the humanities, or in general knowing "how to think"
>>
>>9208736
For all careers in applied psychology you need the actual degree, so
>>
>>9208543
>breitbart
So you're basically just admitting that some topics in college are *not allowed*, and that even raising them is not acceptable? Then how can you call college a place of critical thinking? You cannot.
>>
>>9206287
This. My university focused on re branding to become one of the "prestigious" unis. This made the experience hell. There was no parking due to construction, lecturers and tutors had a seriously high turnover rate. Plus many other issues, but they still feel the need to remind us to pay $40,000 for a piece of paper.
>>
>>9206191
>b-but networking though!
Why do people accept nepotism so readily?
Maybe this is why the world is so fucked
>>
>>9208856
They are brainlets trying to justify their thousands in debt or hundreds of hours wasted.
>>
>>
File: wellargued.png (916KB, 1870x922px) Image search:
[Google]
916KB, 1870x922px
>>9206215
Good thing you're here to tell people what they're not doing
>>
>>9206646
Social media or groupthings like meetup.com
>>
>>9208929
Yeah of course I know it works.
I think anybody could see that it works.
Its not healthy that it works.
Everybody leaving school with a degree, getting jobs that have nothing to do with whats written on it.
And maybe this is why everybody is fine with it.
As long as it works for them who cares right? They paid their dues didn't they? They went through the system, the proper channels. This is what they deserve now. They earned it.
Paycheck is a paycheck at the end of the day.
A smidge of oil spilled in the ocean, a few dead babies, a handful of shoddy laws... no biggie right? It happens. Mistakes were made. Everybody makes mistakes. Completely unavoidable mistakes.
>>
>>9209056
>people getting humanities jobs based on personal referrals kills babies and causes massive oil spills
This is your brain on autodidacticism.
>>
>>9207183
lmao
Thread posts: 195
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13