"In the case of social sciences and humanities, college produces very little societal value."

Ridicoulous statements like this is why discussions outside a very few subjects never go anywhere on HN.

I say that as a social science graduate. I think there's very little value produced in those fields. I don't really think they produce critical thinking.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have included the humanities. I think everyone should read the materials studied in those fields. I personally lean towards reading them on my own time, but for many a humanities education is the impetus to read many works they would otherwise never read.

Edit: I'll add that, while I didn't give a reason why I think they produce little value, you didn't do anything to refute me. You just gave an ad hominem attack.

There is some value produced in those fields. However, it is very difficult to produce a controlled experiment in the social sciences. Yet they have scientific and mathematical pretensions. I agree with Nassim Taleb that much of what they produce is uncertain, tenuous and misleading.

Further, they teach students poor skills. The writing requirements encouraged bloated writing, which leads to the opposite of clear thinking.

I'm also a logic teacher (I work in LSAT prep). I see A students who have not learned how to think. I have seen no evidence that undergraduate social science degrees encourage better patterns of thought or erudition, the two most cited reasons for a liberal arts education.

I can definitely be debated if the current state of education is the best one, but that isn't really how your original statement read. For the record my reply wasn't meant as an attack on you (as in ad hominem), but on your statement which is far too common on HN.

I think social sciences when done correctly do produce good thinking, as any theory is only as good as its reasoning. In my opinion the real tragedy occurs when soft and hard sciences mix. Many times, especially in this setting, because someone with a hard science mindset doesn't understand, or ignore, the premise of soft science. I personally think this is why there are so many wild disagreements on things like systems engineering within the tech community.

It can also be argued that college isn't the best format (age, place, duration) to learn social science, but that can be said about many areas of study. It would also be to, as much of the debate do, ignore the lack of alternatives. In technology there are many examples of people dropping out and having success, at least as a practitioner, in their field. In many other areas this isn't as true. It might even say more about CS education than anything else.

Of course college also has value as an experience. It's where many people find their independence and meet long standing friends, colleagues and partners. Which would be perfectly fine to do anywhere else, but plumbing probably isn't it.

"I think social sciences when done correctly do produce good thinking"

But the fact you have to include that caveat is itself evidence that it generally isn't.

We have to get over this blind devotion to the idea that college is so awesome that even questioning its value is heresy, and take a hard look at the facts. Yes, frankly, the value generated by the humanities right now by our colleges is not commensurate to the money we are pouring into it, nor the debt slavery we're imposing on people for it. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but the solution isn't letting the humanities continue to rot while they hide behind our blind obeisance to "education is of infinite value so we need not consider the costs! Ever! Don't even ask or you're no better than a knuckle-dragging hillbilly!"

Beyond a sober reconsideration of exactly what sort of benefits we are getting are better benefits than what we are now. But first, we have to ask the questions.

I think the problem with social sciences is that it's too easy to make subtle mistakes and have them become established doctrine because they confirm some sort of pre-existing societal belief and/or political ideology. Once people get invested in the large body of work developed on top of these subtle mistakes, they refuse to unlearn all of it, even when faced with compelling arguments.

I believe plumbers should have a college education. As I said in an above reply, I don't believe college education is about learning things that are directly relevant to any profession. It is about learning critical thinking, how to work with others at a high level, and how to acquire new skills easily.

You don't need college to develop critical thinking and learn how to learn. In fact, by the time students reach college, it's already too late: the main complaint I hear from acquaintances that teach at private colleges is that students don't want to work for the knowledge; they expect an extension of high school with a diploma at the end.

And no matter how enlightening this experience is, we can't ignore the financial side. A young person saddled with $50,000 in debt and no prospect of a high-paying job is in effect a serf. Add a mortgage a few years down the line, and you are ensuring that this person will never be free.

If you aren't learning critical thinking before you get to college, then we're doing high school wrong.

...and if you think you are a plumber without learning critical thinking then you aren't really a plumber.

> It is about learning critical thinking, how to work with others at a high level, and how to acquire new skills easily.

All 3 of which can, and should be learned outside of college.

Hell, of the 3, the second 2 are only really learned out in the work force. After all, learning new skills easily when you are going to school is fairly trivial. It's learning new skills after you've hit the work force. When you aren't spending the day in school, being fed the information.

If all college does is provide you with those 3 things, it's a waste of time.

I agree. The goal of increased education doesn't make sense to me - increased potential for future prosperity should be a goal in my opinion.