Okay Veeky Forums

Are you out of your mind or something? Daycare is in intensely high demand, and you make quite a bit of money if you have the accreditation. I'm not shitting on the humanities; I'm shitting on paying for a humanities degree. You can read an entire library of books for free, and you should do so.

What are you, like four days old? Reddit is a few clicks away pal.

You still can't get a job with all those Ass Degrees?

No they aren't. You're brainwashed. The 'best' are good if you want a research position, that is it. They are fucking laughable for undergrad and grad school.
Oh look, the tard wrangler doesn't know a thing about how education works. Aren't you going to be a wonderful little teacher?

Nope. Not one worth having anyway.

>quite a bit of money
>Looks up daycare admin salary
>50k a year
>looks up daycare teacher salary
>20k a year

What do I not know about education? Are you implying you can't get a good humanities education with the internet and a literal library?

For me 50k a year is quite a bit, and I really enjoy working with kids.

You can open your own daycare. My mom runs one. Not the user you're responding to.

much harder to do without a guiding hand. You're likely to misinterpret vital texts, and read texts arbitrarily. Plus the time it would take to come up with your own syllabus and resources would be a pain in the ass. Degrees provide structure and smart people to discuss topics with.

Everything, clearly. You have no clue how a university education works.
Impossible without a guide. b-b-b-b-btu le library mememe wtf who PAYS LE MONEY to not MAKE LE MONEY *sucks koch*

i studied finance/biology in an ivy league and work in biotech consulting

i had enough credits for a double major in english though, and most of the english/complit courses i took were far higher quality in terms of instruction and student caliber than the science or business ones

I just don't agree. I've taken plenty of electives in humanities topics, and I think it's actually better to just read a lot.

>and smart people to discuss topics with.
lol

wow look someone actually answering the question

MSc in Mechanical Engineering

they don’t do anything, he’s just a monkey. CS is completely useless without pedigree and high iq. You’re the worst kind of parrot retard fake mathematician, fake engineer. They’re the dumbest people in STEM, only engineers and a large number of Bio people have lower average iq’s and they’re the most effeminate easily exploited, boring people alive. They are quite possibly the maggot man mentioned in the introduction to Zarathustra

If you find it impossible to just read and learn without a guide then you're probably some sort of idiot. I'm in university right now.

Unless you literally develop all your time since childhood to reading (see: Leopardi) it's basically impossible

sounds like you’re a greedy know nothing

>by smart people I mean people that are engaged in the exact same topic you are engaged in, reading and writing on the same material, plus the PhD faculty. It's much harder to go online and find that degree of immersion.

Sorry, but can you please explain what in particular a university course provides so quickly that would take "all of your time since childhood" to achieve on your own? I'm in university right now. I'm currently enrolled in humanities electives. I am not having this experience whatsoever, and I think it's better to just read a lot on your own time.

How about I just read great authors all day who were 1000 times more intelligent and interesting than the average PhD faculty member? I seriously can't find anything wrong with that approach. If I'm looking for discourse there are online databases full of articles of criticism.

i definitely chose my majors with my post-graduate job and future career progression in mind, so i'll accept that label

since i don't plan on getting a PhD or working in the publishing industry, it makes sense to consider a more practical path

i'm happy with the work though, as i find it intellectually interesting, and i have very motivated/talented colleagues, for the most part

>much harder to do without a guiding hand. You're likely to misinterpret vital texts, and read texts arbitrarily. Plus the time it would take to come up with your own syllabus and resources would be a pain in the ass. Degrees provide structure and smart people to discuss topics with.
Is this my daily reminder that most people don't know libraries have catalogues or about ibn Tufail? Or maybe it's my weekly reminder that idiots go to university and think rote learning without Greek is hard?

Why exactly is it a good thing to have hundreds of thousands of children are wasting other people's money every year for useless degrees that will deliver no return on investment?

Their economy relies on consumer spending.

>I think it's better to just read a lot on your own time.

>Read about a topic daily
>Discuss with synchronous back and forth on a topic daily
>Write about daily

vs
>read about topic
>post basic question on topic bc can't understand
>wait for replies, get inundated with wrong and right answers
>waste time googling for right answer
>asynchronous discourse on topic
>more confused before you started

Autodidactism is overrated for abstract topics

Bachelor's degree in Finance.

I have since become disenchanted with Finance, but I still have a huge interest in Economics. I am probably the only reason why people on here read or talk about economics so much. I read the entire Wealth of Nations, Ricardo's Principles, J.S. Mill's Principles, Carl Menger's Principles, reading through Leon Walras' Elements right now, I have read Fisher already and Mises' responses, and skipped ahead to Keynes to read his work one time, before I pass through and re-read it again.

I will say one thing about economics: I'm glad I was taught calculus extensively, it is required fundamentally for some authors like Walras, Fisher, and Keynes.

I love Economics, hate Finance nowadays. Lol, big difference ofc. The one other thing I'm a fan of is mathematics. If you see anyone talking about Euclid or Archimedes it is probably me.

I read heavy, dense works sometimes. The kind that take a month to read if you read one chapter every day. The stuff I read is typically non-fiction but I will read some fiction every now and then.

>>read about topic
>>post basic question on topic bc can't understand
Why in the second case does user ask a retarded question, but in the first case he does not?

I'm sensing a lot of spoonfeeding in your definition of university, which indicates a shit school for abstract topics or discussion.

Have you read the Strathern book I've been reccing for years?

Conversations with your peers, tests forcing you to actually being able to think (not saying that you can't bullshit through it, but if you're honest with yourself you won't), being able to talk with professors, having someone much more knowledgeable than you guide you through an incredible amount of material, helping you selecting texts and explaining them to you. A good course with a good prof is genuinely irreplaceable.

Why aren't I able to understand the topic? Why am I posting 'basic questions'? Do you... do you actually use Veeky Forums in this way? Do you need to? Is this how brainlets see the world? I never knew...

Look, if you're so retarded you can't self-guide your education through reading and learning a lot on your own time then how are you ever going to make it through life? Do you plan to be in school forever? Is education something you do for four years and then never do again? Think, man.

I have a 144 IQ

the genesis is the same, you start at a topic, but what follows from that is different. In the first case you have real, knowledgeable people to rely on. In the second case you have arbitrary anons telling you what may or may not be correct, or you have to search for the right answer yourself via a database, which usually takes fucking forever.

You're right. When you get specialized to a certain level, it gets hard to find any reasonable discussion outside of academia, if your work doesn't require it or anything.

I mean honestly, that doesn't stop me from feeling like I'm always hearing different ideas on the same topic or reading about different things from different authors. If you are doing autodidactism correctly, then you should be performing little series of syntopical reading, as suggested by Mortimer J. Adler in "How To Read a Book".

it's definitely important to adopt an autodidactic, life-long learning approach to studying literature (or, really, anything else is life)

but i think the primary argument for the value of university seminars is the sheer density of experience and knowledge that can be conveyed by a talented instructor (and good classmates) over the course of several months. i don't believe they need to mutually exclusive, but self-studying is complimented by having a teacher, and getting the most value from a teacher requires a lot of self-studying, if that makes sense

>A good course with a good prof is genuinely irreplaceable.
You're wrong. It's replacable through good books by great writers and thinkers. I'm sorry if you need your hand held every step of the way. Maybe it's a brainlet thing I'm just not familiar with.

>having someone much more knowledgeable than you guide you through an incredible amount of material
Yes, that's the authors themselves.

>helping you selecting texts and explaining them to you.
Why would I need help selecting texts? There are entire libraries of things I'd like to read. Why do I need books 'explained to me' in a classroom? Can you provide any real-world examples of this?

>i am an unimaginative faggot cuck with low fluid intelligence

>the sheer density of experience and knowledge that can be conveyed by a talented instructor
In my opinion this is significantly less than the density conveyed through the material itself. Maybe if you're at Harvard or something, and you're literally taking classes taught by Nabokov or someone on his level, but I'm not. I've taken courses in literature, and they have not been efficient uses of my time. Simply reading more books is almost always going to be better. Is the average instructor better than the average great writer, word for word? No, I'm going to say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Strathern

This person? No this isn't even close to being what I mentioned being interested in.

Like I said, I don't even really consider myself as being a member of this site. I stop by and post every now and then but most of everyone here is so lost in their own little world with stupid philosophical concepts that they barely talk about things that fundamentally matter.

when i read something by pound or eliot or someone, i found it genuinely insightful to have my thoughts interrogated, challenged, or supported by a scholar who spent most of his adult life reading and writing about those subjects. i'm sure that some of his thoughts could be substituted with a good theory book or selection of papers, but the physical interaction, the process of pedagogy, made for an engaging, memorable experience. i really enjoy having seminar-style conversations in general, though, so i'm maybe biased towards the value of in-person instruction

>the genesis is the same, you start at a topic, but what follows from that is different.
Only you've preempted the person in the first case from asking a question by there merely being a knowledgeable person nearby, without any different input from that person than from having a computer or tree nearby. Your logic doesn't follow.

If you're OP, ask for a refund on your BA because you have been ripped off and it's meaningless expense not a qualification.

Jesus fucking it's like you purpusefully misread my post in order to call me a brainlet. Go fuck yourself.
I have an iq in the 140s

No, Paul Strathern, Dr Strangelove's Game.

You're clearly not the only person discussing Econ here, because we've been having threads about it for years for me to shill that in which you haven't seen.

Chemistry BS. Focusing on organic. Screenwriting minor. I want to write educational fiction for all ages.

>Why aren't I able to understand the topic? Why am I posting 'basic questions'? Do you... do you actually use Veeky Forums in this way? Do you need to?

Case in point. I'm sorry you're too dull to read between the lines. Maybe if you majored in philosophy instead of child education, this wouldn't be an issue for you.

>Is education something you do for four years and then never do again?

There you go again asking stupidly basic questions. Of course, I teach myself. If it were up to me I'd go back to school and study even more philosophy instead of doing it on my own time. Unfortunately, getting an advanced degree in philosophy isn't tangible and clashes with other goals in life. In a perfect world I certainly would though. Gotta work with what I have.

Does this book use mathematics at all?

>when i read something by pound or eliot or someone, i found it genuinely insightful to have my thoughts interrogated, challenged, or supported by a scholar who spent most of his adult life reading and writing about those subjects.
Your average university professor is definitely not going to be someone who spent most of his adult life reading about Pound and Eliot. Eliot, by the way, is one of the most popular English writers, and unless you're literally doing your fucking masters thesis on HIM SPECIFICALLY, you're not going to need the kind of specialized instruction that someone who really did spend his entire adult life studying him can provide. How do courses even work in your country? Here you're in class for about four hours a week (per course) for three months (a semester), and most courses are not devoted to one author. Why not read everything Eliot ever wrote (I have, every word), and use the internet to figure out the references? I only understand your position in relation to graduate work.

that's true - i went to an ivy, but i've had a share of poor instructors (mostly TA's/grad students) who weren't prepared or able to actually engage with a text. i'd estimate that maybe 30% of my literature courses were "worth the time," and those were all small group graduate seminars with established, experienced professors

i do think that, on some level, "teaching" and "writing" could be considered separate skills for that purpose, where a talented instructor may not have the most prestigious published articles/books, or a well-respected critic ends up being uncomfortable with pedagogy.

>Unfortunately, getting an advanced degree in philosophy isn't tangible and clashes with other goals in life. In a perfect world I certainly would though. Gotta work with what I have.
This is exactly what I said in my original post you dumb fuck. There's nothing wrong with going to school for philosophy if you're independently wealthy or something. But you're a brainlet who can't conceive of education if it doesn't come with a 50k price tag. I'd feel bad for you if I didn't hate stupid people so much.

yes - we met for 3-4 hours once a week for seminars, generally around 5-10 students and the professor

i really do think that some of my professors were the top of their scholarly fields when it came to expertise - writing well-known books, chairing journals and publications, and so on. but it's obviously a very narrow kind of credential, if at all

i never planned on doing a masters/phd, but i've enjoy learning about the various theories that these writers/critics/professors have - a kind of intellectual exercise i guess

The thing is, when most people talk about the value of humanities programs, and their really great instructors, they're almost invariably referring to people who exposed them to a latent passion for the subject, and awakened within them a desire to actually learn and read about it on their own time. For me, that's not something I need because it's already there. A lot of people considered Joseph Campbell a great professor, but it's not like you needed to take his classes. His course reading lists are standard for the subject, and readily available. If you like comparative religion/mythology then you're going to get the most bang by simply reading all of the seminal works. You don't need to sit in Joseph Campbells classroom, and, hey, he wrote like 30 books too, so if you want you can take the equivalent of 5 or 6 courses with him for only a few hundred dollars (if you buy the books).

...

Alright, well I'm happy you enjoyed the experience, but I strongly disagree with you that it's necessary.

You're such a faggot dude. I'll take a venti vanilla latte, by the way.

No, it's a history of economic genius, as the subtitle says. About as close to mathematics it gets is explaining how much currency governments issued or how in debt they were. Most of it is about creating financial instruments rather than asking you to work out compound interest or anything.

oh, i certainly agree that it's not necessary for the lifelong enjoyment and further understanding of literature. i just believe that, in some cases, with the right conditions/professors, it's can be a singular academic experience

Oh, I thought you were the person arguing for its necessity because the alternative is "spending all of your time since childhood" on reading.

fuck academia. Especially non-STEM shit. Liberal arts/humanities degrees are fucking worthless. The people that get them now don't even contribute to society or the economy.

Here's some advice for you morons:
Either go STEM or ditch college and learn a trade. And by go STEM I mean stick with Engineering or Computer Science mainly unless your a god tier genius at Math or some shit.

Otherwise you're wasting your time and money. Colleges should just be turned into pure vocational schooling anyway.

But as it stands right now, honestly, get a real degree. You want want a marketable education, not a political indoctrination. You can get the latter online easily enough. Going to college for humanities/liberal arts shit just brainwashes you. It makes you dumber. Studies have shown.

The employment rate for an English degree is higher than for a CS degree

Uh huh. Employment where?

University has always been for the humanities

You're in a retard STEM program. You have no idea what we actually do. You think we just fucking read.

Autodidactcucks need to be beaten.
English 101 isn't a humanities elective, it's remedial English.
You're proving our point. You've never had an original thought in your life.
Please just kys

I'm in early childhood learning, but I've taken a number of humanities electives, including literature courses. Unless you're pursuing something at the post-grad level, I think what 'you actually do' is substantially less valuable than just fucking reading.

Eh, if it's that kind of economic book I'm not interested. Typically I'll read primary sources like The General Theory or something.

>Being this butthurt
I should be more grateful that I wasn't born a brainlet who thinks education can only be achieved over a four year period for tens of thousands of dollars. I'm actually able to think for myself, make connections, read great books, etc. It's great.

ivyshits are the worst schools imaginable.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Please find a rope. Holy shit this board is filled with plebbitors.

Have you actually ever seen a university from the inside?

MUUUUUH WHITE CIIIVILIZASHUUUUUUN FUCKING NIGGERS REEEEEEEE

That's STEM. You have no idea what we do, again, English 101 isn't an elective you stupid cunt. Holy shit, never go near children, you have no idea how education works.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You feel bad because you're wasting tens of thousands of dollars. It probably sucks; I get it. I also get that you need to feel like university courses are offering you something that reading can't, but at an undergrad level it's simply not true.

You aren't able to do any of that. Your posts make that evident. You've never had an original thought in your life and you've never been criticized in your life, hence your entitlement. Go eat some laundry soap you fucking child.

I take classes with literature majors. I'm not sure why you're assuming English 101, lol. Here in Canada you don't need to be getting an English degree to take the same English courses as the people who are. Is it different where you live?

Maybe at American universities. Elsewhere, no hon, you're wrong. Please find a rope. I haven't spent a dime of my own money.
Dogmatist subhumans like you need a good fucking slaps.
Yes, you took English 101 with literature majors, you stupid subhuman fuck.

>I also get that you need to feel like university courses are offering you something that reading can't, but at an undergrad level it's simply not true.

Yup that's why most humanities advanced degree holders have no bachelors degree whatsoever. They just "read books on their own."

I am able to do it. And I'd be willing to bet that I've read between 3 and 10 times more than you have.

You haven't. Reading le STEM meme books isn't an education. Go back to sucking Peterson cock, you subhuman.

Bachelor's degree in Biochemistry.

Safe to say I didn't meet anyone with an actual interest in literature during my degree.

Sure, if you want to pursue a post-grad in humanities you have to get the degree. I'm not arguing that there's never a practical purpose behind getting a humanities degree; I'm arguing that you can learn the same material, more effectively, simply by reading. If you need the degree to advance your career then by all means.

I'd like to point out that my program isn't exempt from this either. I worked in a daycare for three years, and I was fantastic at it. I shouldn't need to get a degree, and I'm not learning anything. I'm taking absolutely retarded courses on childhood nutrition and shit. Have you ever tried to feed 8-10 kids a bunch of vegetables? It's idiotic.

>I'd like to read about Keynes but not what he did IRL with Lloyd George
ok

Equivalent of an MS in Materials Science.

>You haven't.
I almost definitely have. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Peterson. I mentioned Joseph Campbell so I suck Peterson's cock? I also mentioned Nabokov in the same capacity.

>I'm arguing that you can learn the same material, more effectively, simply by reading.

You can't though, you are proving this with every post. You are incapable of anything, that's why you're a tard wrangler.
Nope, you haven't. You are proving that with every post. You have the intelligence of a read rat. Find a rope and learn how to use it, you subhuman.
hurr durr i read le book that means im le smart xdddDDDD\dadasf\srhHRAERYHSDJTAEHZDTHJDJFGJSEDDHF

Undergrad in societal philosophy. Transferring to a world top 60 university for a major in theoretical philosophy. Laughing at burgers all the way because I'm not paying a cent and state even pays my living expenses.

What a horrific opinion. I mean Jesus Christ, what world do you inhabit?

Ya realize we need lawyers, right? You understand that an electrical engineer wouldn't make a good journalist, right? And that a CS major wouldn't make a very good general, right?

I'm sorry that your brainlet mind can't comprehend actually reading books and understanding them. It's not like more worthy books exist than could be read over the course of 10 lifetimes or anything. No, the only way to learn is to have a professor tell you things. The people who wrote books the professors talk about, what did they know?

I can pretty much tell with certainty that I'm more intelligent than you, and also that I've read more. Why are you so upset and weird?

what is a burger/burger school?