[curiousllama]

Over a decade ago, my orientation at UChicago included the traditional "Aims of Education" address. They packed the whole first-year class into the chapel to explain, at length, that this education will not be "useful."

You're not supposed to make more money, or be happier, or really become anything other than a better version of yourself.

I wonder if they still do this.

[Yizahi]

I didn't have such experience in my local polytechnic, but my friend went to study Theoretical Physics at the best university in the country. He told me, that right at the beginning of the very first day they gathered all freshmen in a hall and their old rector came to them. He said almost literally this: "here are a hundred of you, all wanting to learn physics, but we only need one". And eventually they did have that "one", he is a top researcher somewhere in America nowadays, he told me. And my friend finished masters there, completing all the hard study, got physics diploma, aaand... went to work as an accountant (he's CFO now, got a secondary MBA later). There is really not a high demand for theoretical physicists, even internationally :) .

[curiousllama]

Expanding this thought...

UChicago should be pretty uniquely positioned to address the problem of AI writ large. They already require a full year of each philosophy, literature, and history (all through primary sources). This "Core" should already be fairly AI-proof, given they are primarily small-group, discussion-driven courses; oral exams, in-class essays, or even graded discussions should be straightforward adaptations.

And yet, the university shifted towards professionalism before AI ("training a mind for the workforce" rather than "the good life").

Already, this transition did what the author observes AI is doing. I would hardly believe someone who cheats through an econ/stats major is less educated - if only through osmosis - than someone who honestly completes Business Economics.

And so I wonder - if the damage of AI is primarily instrumental to the broader trend of hyper-professionalism, what damage has it actually done?

If we automate away the signal to companies "yes, I can do stats for you," does that free students to focus more on the _less_ professional aspects of education?

Sure, it undercuts credentialism, making the "piece of paper" near worthless - but if our aim of education is just to "be better," should that not give us hope?

[jimbokun]

If the signal to corporations disappears the wage premium to a college education disappears and the students disappear along with the tuition paying the professors’ salaries.

[curiousllama]

Maybe? Elite colleges have been around a lot longer than the professional credentialism of the last 20 years, no?

[jimbokun]

The point was still the credentials.

Otherwise what signal does “prominent family and graduated from Harvard” have over just “prominent family”?

[curiousllama]

Again - maybe?

The credential was certainly something - a more easily understood distillation of the of connections and status that got you there. But that's not exactly professional the way a degree in Business is.

Besides, were there not other high-minded notions that underpinned that credential - ideas of self-development and virtuous leadership? And more crass notions of polish and status? Were these not the self-justifications of these elites, made manifest through the institutions?

As a side note - I do strongly suspect elite schools will bring these ideas back. If not for virtue, for necessity - as schools seek to self-justify in ways that go beyond the dollars they risk losing.

[jimbokun]

Surely some better versions of yourself would make more money or be happier?

[curiousllama]

Maybe - to your point, if we think of happiness as like “living one’s own purpose fully”, then yes, it does very directly.

But I was referring to happiness more generally as enjoyment, joy, satisfaction - that type of thing.

And in that case - there are plenty of ways being better = less happy. Eg if I were to sacrifice myself to save my family, then that’s the best version of me, but I’d be pretty dang unhappy about it.