Almost seems like the writer treated the process like playing a video game, without all the pretty colors and sounds that give you that dopamine hit.
I feel like I did get a lot out of my Computer Science degree. I got it in 2004 and I picked up a lot of stuff I don't think I would have learned on my own. I also went to a small state University in the middle of nowhere that' wasn't very expensive, and I didn't rack up any debt (a little in grad school, but still not more that I couldn't pay off in ~2 years).
But you get out of your education what you put into it. I worked with people who went to 2-year associate programs who didn't understand BigO notation, and people who didn't go to college at all, but who knew their algorithms inside and out (one who even got in at Google in the early days).
I'm glad I got my degree, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost some people are paying now. I shared my concerns with my nephew and he ended up getting his CS degree at a smaller/cheaper state university. I'd say if you can't get a degree without going into excessive debt, it's really not worth it today.
I know I'm just guessing, but the writer of this article seems crazy driven. Maybe, this is the type of person who could start their own small business out of nowhere, or survive long hours at SpaceX for the pure thrill of successful rocket launches? If you have the drive to run through something like this, there really aren't any limits to what you can do. I've done pretty well at all my jobs and have learned a lot of cool stuff, worked in three countries ... but on a scale of Wally (from Dilbert) to Elon, I'm certainly more towards the Wally side.
Going back to games; I wonder if this type of education and training would be more accessibl if it was gameified. McDonalds Japan briefly tried to turn their training program into a Nintendo DS game (failed terrible and the game is very rare). That might be a model for new typed of education going forward.
I think that what happened here was almost the opposite of gamification.
Gamification is adding of artificial goals and artificial rewards, with the idea that achieving them will be addictive enough that you will continue playing. Like if you do math on Khan Academy, and then you have the animations of "you have completed the challenge" and "you have gained another level", and if you are intrinsically motivated and you came there to do the math, this is actually distracting. External motivation helps those who have none, but hinders those who already have internal motivation.
In some sense, dividing the university into grades, and organizing lessons in schedule is... a very primitive form of gamification. If you have a motivated person, you don't need to do this; just give them the books, and they will read. You don't need to set up a schedule for them, because the motivated person's natural schedule is "as soon as possible". The schedule is just slowing them down. (But it works the opposite for an unmotivated person, who without schedule would never get anything done.)
The deal is: pass these X exams, and you will receive a diploma, which is a certificate that you passed the exams. When you remove the distractions, it can be done pretty fast.
Gamification could be great for students with low motivation. But it would take a lot of time, because it means doing things that are not essential.
>Going back to games; I wonder if this type of education and training would be more accessibl if it was gameified.
Standard stuff like GitHub stars and so forth notwithstanding, my sense is that more extreme gamification has sort of fallen out of favor. MOOCs tried a fair number of gamification "tricks" and by and large I don't think they really helped much.
It doesn't sound like he was working either during the first two attempts where he dropped out. It looks like it took some real world experience to create the motivation to get the degree.
The focus for education is often way too much on the actual instruction (whatever form it may take) rather than the "life structure" the learning takes place in. Let's look at this guy's situation:
>He wasn't working; he had enough money to comfortably pursue this as a full time effort, including paying his tuition, fees, and "room and board" without going into debt
>He was able to establish a routine which included self-care, meaning that he was unhampered by external obligations, mental illness, or material need
>He was able to sequester his studying physically (having a separate home office) and temporally (again, being able to establish a routine which didn't include studying during the time he'd set aside for other things)
>He was studying something he was interested in, with prior knowledge respected and support forthcoming from resources (through a paywall, of course)
If successful study is a function of focus and progression over an extended period, it makes sense that these factors would contribute to that success, as they would have been essential for his ability to achieve and maintain focus (he says as much, in that he mentions never getting close to burnout). In many ways, I think much of what we have in terms of material and presentation is already adequate; the problem is that so many people (including many children) are kept from circumstances conducive to effective learning. People complain about a hypothetical, robust social safety net being an attempt to secure "equality of outcome," but it's evident that successes and failures tend to compound due to the way that outcomes serve as a foundation for the structure future endeavors take place in.
As someone in the same position that the author was in (dropped out of college, have had a successful career in Silicon Valley) I can understand the allure of doing a 'speedrun' to get a degree. For one, if you want to emigrate to Europe, most work visas will require you to have a degree, no matter how many years of experience you've had in the US. You might also be tempted to do a masters or PhD in a particular topic you are interested in.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the college experience. I loved it and made friends I'm close to to this day. But sometimes you just want the paper.
I’ve considered going back to school, but eventually decided I don’t really want to do a CS degree, unfortunately there’s very little good degrees out there, accessible to people like me. I spent a good amount of time trying to find a way to “hack” the process, but no matter what, the time-cost is the real killer for me.
To be honest, I feel like the base CS degree is kind of useless to anyone who has worked in the industry for a while. But it does give you the opportunity to do an MS or PhD, which could be more interesting if there's still an academic itch you want to scratch.
They are pretty common at least in Europe, in particular if you are looking for a visa type that doesn't require a sponsor. There are ways around them - for example Spain will let you apply for a 'startup' if you are starting your own company - but kind of a bummer if you thought you could just move to Europe.
> I know I'm just guessing, but the writer of this article seems crazy driven.
Look at the details in the article, breaking down time and money spent per course and per week. Yes, this is a person who is extremely organized and disciplined and knows how to optimize their time and effort.
> Going back to games;.... That might be a model for new typed of education going forward.
I think this is how 42 school works. I've known a couple people who started the program there but none who completed it. However 42 is afaik not accredited and WGU(where the OP attended) is. 42 probably lands more in the coding bootcamp end of education the spectrum.
It's been a while since I read Dilbert but I've come to find you can often learn just as much from the Wallies of the world as from the Elons, and I don't mean it as cautionary knowledge.
I feel like I did get a lot out of my Computer Science degree. I got it in 2004 and I picked up a lot of stuff I don't think I would have learned on my own. I also went to a small state University in the middle of nowhere that' wasn't very expensive, and I didn't rack up any debt (a little in grad school, but still not more that I couldn't pay off in ~2 years).
But you get out of your education what you put into it. I worked with people who went to 2-year associate programs who didn't understand BigO notation, and people who didn't go to college at all, but who knew their algorithms inside and out (one who even got in at Google in the early days).
I'm glad I got my degree, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost some people are paying now. I shared my concerns with my nephew and he ended up getting his CS degree at a smaller/cheaper state university. I'd say if you can't get a degree without going into excessive debt, it's really not worth it today.
I know I'm just guessing, but the writer of this article seems crazy driven. Maybe, this is the type of person who could start their own small business out of nowhere, or survive long hours at SpaceX for the pure thrill of successful rocket launches? If you have the drive to run through something like this, there really aren't any limits to what you can do. I've done pretty well at all my jobs and have learned a lot of cool stuff, worked in three countries ... but on a scale of Wally (from Dilbert) to Elon, I'm certainly more towards the Wally side.
Going back to games; I wonder if this type of education and training would be more accessibl if it was gameified. McDonalds Japan briefly tried to turn their training program into a Nintendo DS game (failed terrible and the game is very rare). That might be a model for new typed of education going forward.