[SamReidHughes]

"a study published in 2013 by the right-leaning RAND Corporation showing that inmates who took classes had a 43 percent lower likelihood of recidivism and a 13 percent higher likelihood of getting a job after leaving prison."

Of course, these are the more capable people in the first place. Most people in prison are too stupid for college. A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.

[Cyberdog]

> Most people in prison are too stupid for college.

[citation needed] on this incredibly inflammatory comment. Yes, people tend to end up in prison after a chain of bad decisions, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're unintelligent to the point of being incapable of learning things.

Arguably, a successful drug dealer has far more real-world experience in economics than a college grad on the topic.

[randomdata]

I will point out that learning things and college are not the same thing. I feel that I know how to learn, but I am too 'stupid' to learn in a scholastic environment. It becomes a frustrating experience as you're left scrambling to learn using more effective methods in the off-hours and wasting your time the rest of the time. And I imagine frustration is already high among those in jail before you try to add more on them.

[khedoros1]

Well, true; it's completely possible to get through college without picking up anything lasting.

Class-time is a minority of the learning time. The basic idea is to gain a basic familiarization before class, then (during class) hopefully have the professor explain the same ideas in a different way and provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught. You shouldn't be doing the bulk of the learning in the classroom itself, IMO. Homework is for you. Tests are a final feedback of the result of the learning process.

I guess my point is that learning in the "off-hours" is kind of the intention (and is part of the best-case scenario, as described above). 2 hours of lecture implies 4 hours (or more) of extra work, done outside of the classroom, on your own or with others. School should provide structure and guidance to learning (providing a schedule, and an appropriate order of concepts to learn). Learning itself is a separate process.

[randomdata]

> Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught.

I think this is the root problem. The structure never seemed right. It didn't assist with learning as it was never the appropriate topics at the appropriate time. Once you get away from college learning is so much easier as you are not dependent on the linear timeline set out by someone else. And because you're actually learning, which is one of the most pleasurable things going, you are excited to keep reaching for more. College fosters none of that.

I understand that learning on your own time is part of the package, but the problem, which I may not have effectively communicated, is that you are still left learning the 'wrong way' as you still have to stick with the course requirements while also trying to learn the 'right way' because that is the only way you are going to learn anything at all. As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.

If you are smart, I am sure that none of this is a problem and the structure of the courses are most likely to your benefit. But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work. Literally everyone can learn. Not everyone is smart.

[khedoros1]

For me, college was a good guide to find ideas that I might not have found on my own, or might have found in a suboptimal order. Hearing the basic ideas always got me excited enough to dig on my own, see how they're used, and what they build up to.

> As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.

The most wasted lectures that I attended were the ones that I went to, but did something else instead of asking questions. There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.

> But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work.

Where did you get the idea that you're stupid? I don't see any evidence of that, and thinking of yourself that way is going to damage any of your efforts. Stupid people aren't generally the kinds that come onto HackerNews to have discussions about the nature of education.

[randomdata]

> There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.

While I understand the value of that in theory, in practice the questions are not available at the time the room is. This makes it mostly worthless. I understand people like you have minds that work in a different way, and that you are able to thrive in that environment. I don't want to minimize the benefit to someone like you, but you must also realize that not everyone is like you.

> Where did you get the idea that you're stupid?

Too stupid for college. I don't know if anyone is truly stupid in every way. Everyone has their speciality.

I would suggest that, given how hard education is pushed in the US that there is a reason that the attainment rate is still just ~30% for four or more year programs and ~40% for two or more year programs: Because most people simply are not capable of thriving in that environment.

I don't see that as a problem though. There are many ways to skin the cat. College doesn't need to be for everyone, and it is faulty logic to think that we should push it on everyone. Especially to those in jail who, statistically, are likely among the group that are not suited for it in the first place.

I do agree that we should do more to enable learning for those people. But, again, learning is not the same thing as college.

[LoSboccacc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6364809.stm

[SamReidHughes]

> [citation needed] on this incredibly inflammatory comment.

The majority of people in general are too stupid for college, and criminals that get caught tend to lean towards the dumb end.

[exolymph]

> Most people in prison are too stupid for college.

Agreed, this is probably true for our current definition of "college"

> A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.

Holy shit, that's a galaxy brain take. I agree that college status signaling is out of control, but doing this would just move the signaling elsewhere. Also it would be a bit fascist IMO.

Anyway, upvoted for interestingness.

[SamReidHughes]

Well I don't mean to ban private colleges -- don't have public ones other than top level state schools, and don't subsidize loans. Replace four years of debt/idleness with four years of income, and later, more years of retirement.

[TYPE_FASTER]

> Most people in prison are too stupid for college. A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population

Missed the /s, I'm assuming.

[lern_too_spel]

Since when is RAND right-leaning? The author must have confused it with Ayn Rand.

[LoSboccacc]

if taking classes was voluntary the population of the study starts with a high selection bias, no wonder they'd be on average more industrious and self motivated than the peers that did not take classes.