First, the video seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. For example, the title of the video is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College" even though you seem to limit your criticisms to art, language, and literature majors at private universities. In other words, you clickbaited the title so people would go in looking for an angry disagreement.
This is even more obvious towards the end of your video where you say that in your experience people who teach humanities subjects are "pretentious jackoffs" who have "dumbass" interpretations. It's hard to interpret this as a good-faith argument about why people in general shouldn't go to college.
Second, you present zero evidence for any claims you make. Your video is a list of assertions. You talk about doing a cost-benefit analysis, but then you handwave numbers out of nowhere. Your video doesn't leave me feeling confident that you've looked at the data on the job prospects of those with vs without college degrees.
I understand that the style of your video isn't a lecture that's comprehensively reviewing the research. But I think that's exactly the problem. Not that every video has to be a lecture. But I would like to see fewer uncharitable, uninformed Angry Rant videos on the EA Forum.
First, the video seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. For example, the title of the video is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College" even though you seem to limit your criticisms to art, language, and literature majors at private universities. In other words, you clickbaited the title so people would go in looking for an angry disagreement.
Of course it's clickbait, and I don't see anything wrong with using clickbait titles as long as they aren't misleading. I didn't intend for people to go in angry just looking at the title, and I don't think people would go in negatively.
If I titled it "You Definitely Shouldn't Go to College" or just "You Shouldn't Go To College" that certainly would be considered misleading. The title more expresses my view that college is not a good idea for most people (and I believe Trade School is a much better and more useful option).
This is even more obvious towards the end of your video where you say that in your experience people who teach humanities subjects are "pretentious jackoffs" who have "dumbass" interpretations. It's hard to interpret this as a good-faith argument about why people in general shouldn't go to college.
...Are you disagreeing with that analysis?
Second, you present zero evidence for any claims you make. Your video is a list of assertions. You talk about doing a cost-benefit analysis, but then you handwave numbers out of nowhere. Your video doesn't leave me feeling confident that you've looked at the data on the job prospects of those with vs without college degrees.
Well I'm actually not confident that you've watched the video in its entirety (or you misunderstood me to an extent).
Do you NEED an art degree to become a successful artist? Especially nowadays considering how accessible all these resources are? Maybe a few decades ago, but nowadays it's much easier (and cheaper) to learn the arts.
Now ask, do you NEED a STEM degree to go into science/engineering? Well you'll probably remember nothing of what you learned after five years, but a job in that field actually requires the piece of paper. Is it stupid? Probably, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
Think of it like this: Let's say I'm making a video game and you need someone to compose music for it. I don't care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard, since it tells me nothing about what type of music you're capable of composing. I'd much rather see previous music you've composed, since that'd actually give me information about your musical talents.
When we compare Art vs STEM, there are some key reasons as to why it's better to major in the latter. Art as I implied can be made at home; Not everyone has the budget and resources to build science labs.
I understand that the style of your video isn't a lecture that's comprehensively reviewing the research. But I think that's exactly the problem. Not that every video has to be a lecture. But I would like to see fewer uncharitable, uninformed Angry Rant videos on the EA Forum.
Not to disrespect anyone here but I think too many members in the movement are too passive and unwilling to cross the line deliberately. Sometimes you need a good asshole to get some things done.
Of course it's clickbait, and I don't see anything wrong with using clickbait titles as long as they aren't misleading.
It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college.
Are you disagreeing with that analysis?
Asserting that humanities professors are pretentious jackoffs with dumbass interpretations is more easily interpreted as angry venting than as reasonable argument.
I don't care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard, since it tells me nothing about what type of music you're capable of composing.
Think of it like this: People care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college.
It's actually for most art degrees in general, which includes nonsense degrees like "Gender Studies" and most sociology. Since these things are soft sciences they're counted as art degrees instead of proper STEM.
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology are soft sciences, and possibly even pseudosciences.
Asserting that humanities professors are pretentious jackoffs with dumbass interpretations is more easily interpreted as angry venting than as reasonable argument.
I'm not sure how else to explain it then. It's self-evident.
Think of it like this: People care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
Did you have to in order to become a successful musician?
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology are soft sciences, and possibly even pseudosciences.
You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology... You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art". You also talk about getting paints from Michael's as a substitute for an arts education. It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general. It also doesn't at all address the fact that most college students don't go to private universities.
Did you have to in order to become a successful musician?
I don't have to use my right hand to be successful. But it would be silly to make a video called "You (Probably) Shouldn't Use Your Right Hand".
You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology...
Right but I also said in my response to you:
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology
You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art".
It was a type of shorthand. I actually wanted to use other pictures for "studies" degrees but Pixabay is fairly limited.
It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general.
I thought it was implied when I said art degree and when I didn't mention things like "studies" degrees in majors I recommend .
It also doesn't at all address the fact that most college students don't go to private universities.
Of course, but most major in (not very useful) art degrees and many have crushing debt, unable to pay back loans.
I don't have to use my right hand to be successful. But it would be silly to make a video called "You (Probably) Shouldn't Use Your Right Hand".
Sure you could learn how to use your left hand, but it's an impedes progress and doesn't really help you much in achieving your goals. Like art school.
Sure you could learn how to use your left hand, but it's an impedes progress and doesn't really help you much in achieving your goals. Like art school.
You're missing the analogy.
Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college.
My argument is that you don't have to use your right hand to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't use your right hand.
Both of these are bad arguments.
A better argument would be: The benefit gained from getting an art degree is not worth the cost of college.
But 1) this would require actually looking at the numbers, and 2) the numbers would probably suggest that college is a good investment (even for art majors).
Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be a successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college.
Actually, my argument was that people in general shouldn't go to college because they'll major in useless crap. I don't really think anyone should major in art stuff frankly (and other things).
You COULD be successful, but in this day and age college is a waste of time for arts (as I said, you do better by doing things you like and going at your own pace rather than doing something some pretentious jackoff assigned to you. Also should mention you learn more by DOING rather than just "practicing").
Not using your right hand is a hindrance. Going to art school is a hindrance.
A better argument would be: The benefit gained from getting an art degree is not worth the cost of college.
That was my point though. You may have just misinterpreted.
the numbers would probably suggest that college is a good investment (even for art majors).
How?
Nathan I tire of this little debacle, either concede that 99% of art degrees are a waste of time and money, or just gunnae drap it.
Do you NEED an art degree to become a successful artist?
You yesterday:
Did you have to [go to Julliard] in order to become a successful musician?
I think it's fair for me to characterize your argument as:
You don't have to go to college to be successful.
I agree that this discussion is unlikely to lead to anything productive. I encourage you to concede that going to college is actually a benefit for most people.
A little bit different from typical EA stuff, but I think it's still relevant in terms of doing good. The video talks about how getting certain degrees is not a useful thing in terms of money and helping society, and how trade school is often a much better option in terms of job security (and thus, have a little to give to effective charities).
I don't think I was really very... in your face in the video as I was in my last one.
Anyway, for discussion, in terms of job utility and money, I argue that jobs such as those in STEM fields and Medical School are the best since they not only are useful for society but they're also quite lucrative fields, which means you can help society with your job AND have tons of money to give. I think it's better to encourage that than say Wall Street jobs that are often recommended. However, I don't think everyone ought to go to college (as I explained in my video) and Trade School offers many job opportunities that are both useful and fairly lucrative (although not quite to the extent as STEM for instance).
As an aside I have concerns about encouraging people to go into high paying jobs (such as working in Wall Street) just so they can give all disposable income to charity, since some may feel as though it's asking a bit too much for no real return (at least as they perceive), an thus is a strong discouragement (If I'm not willing to give 90%, why bother giving at all?). But that's a discussion for another thread.
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
I downvoted this and wanted to explain why.
First, the video seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. For example, the title of the video is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College" even though you seem to limit your criticisms to art, language, and literature majors at private universities. In other words, you clickbaited the title so people would go in looking for an angry disagreement.
This is even more obvious towards the end of your video where you say that in your experience people who teach humanities subjects are "pretentious jackoffs" who have "dumbass" interpretations. It's hard to interpret this as a good-faith argument about why people in general shouldn't go to college.
Second, you present zero evidence for any claims you make. Your video is a list of assertions. You talk about doing a cost-benefit analysis, but then you handwave numbers out of nowhere. Your video doesn't leave me feeling confident that you've looked at the data on the job prospects of those with vs without college degrees.
I understand that the style of your video isn't a lecture that's comprehensively reviewing the research. But I think that's exactly the problem. Not that every video has to be a lecture. But I would like to see fewer uncharitable, uninformed Angry Rant videos on the EA Forum.
Of course it's clickbait, and I don't see anything wrong with using clickbait titles as long as they aren't misleading. I didn't intend for people to go in angry just looking at the title, and I don't think people would go in negatively.
If I titled it "You Definitely Shouldn't Go to College" or just "You Shouldn't Go To College" that certainly would be considered misleading. The title more expresses my view that college is not a good idea for most people (and I believe Trade School is a much better and more useful option).
...Are you disagreeing with that analysis?
Well I'm actually not confident that you've watched the video in its entirety (or you misunderstood me to an extent).
Do you NEED an art degree to become a successful artist? Especially nowadays considering how accessible all these resources are? Maybe a few decades ago, but nowadays it's much easier (and cheaper) to learn the arts.
Now ask, do you NEED a STEM degree to go into science/engineering? Well you'll probably remember nothing of what you learned after five years, but a job in that field actually requires the piece of paper. Is it stupid? Probably, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
Think of it like this: Let's say I'm making a video game and you need someone to compose music for it. I don't care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard, since it tells me nothing about what type of music you're capable of composing. I'd much rather see previous music you've composed, since that'd actually give me information about your musical talents.
When we compare Art vs STEM, there are some key reasons as to why it's better to major in the latter. Art as I implied can be made at home; Not everyone has the budget and resources to build science labs.
Not to disrespect anyone here but I think too many members in the movement are too passive and unwilling to cross the line deliberately. Sometimes you need a good asshole to get some things done.
It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college.
Asserting that humanities professors are pretentious jackoffs with dumbass interpretations is more easily interpreted as angry venting than as reasonable argument.
Think of it like this: People care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
It's actually for most art degrees in general, which includes nonsense degrees like "Gender Studies" and most sociology. Since these things are soft sciences they're counted as art degrees instead of proper STEM.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
Most of these are not STEM or Med-School.
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology are soft sciences, and possibly even pseudosciences.
I'm not sure how else to explain it then. It's self-evident.
Did you have to in order to become a successful musician?
You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology... You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art". You also talk about getting paints from Michael's as a substitute for an arts education. It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general. It also doesn't at all address the fact that most college students don't go to private universities.
I don't have to use my right hand to be successful. But it would be silly to make a video called "You (Probably) Shouldn't Use Your Right Hand".
Right but I also said in my response to you:
It was a type of shorthand. I actually wanted to use other pictures for "studies" degrees but Pixabay is fairly limited.
I thought it was implied when I said art degree and when I didn't mention things like "studies" degrees in majors I recommend .
Of course, but most major in (not very useful) art degrees and many have crushing debt, unable to pay back loans.
Sure you could learn how to use your left hand, but it's an impedes progress and doesn't really help you much in achieving your goals. Like art school.
You're missing the analogy.
Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college.
My argument is that you don't have to use your right hand to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't use your right hand.
Both of these are bad arguments.
A better argument would be: The benefit gained from getting an art degree is not worth the cost of college.
But 1) this would require actually looking at the numbers, and 2) the numbers would probably suggest that college is a good investment (even for art majors).
Actually, my argument was that people in general shouldn't go to college because they'll major in useless crap. I don't really think anyone should major in art stuff frankly (and other things).
You COULD be successful, but in this day and age college is a waste of time for arts (as I said, you do better by doing things you like and going at your own pace rather than doing something some pretentious jackoff assigned to you. Also should mention you learn more by DOING rather than just "practicing").
Not using your right hand is a hindrance. Going to art school is a hindrance.
That was my point though. You may have just misinterpreted.
How?
Nathan I tire of this little debacle, either concede that 99% of art degrees are a waste of time and money, or just gunnae drap it.
You three days ago:
You yesterday:
I think it's fair for me to characterize your argument as:
I agree that this discussion is unlikely to lead to anything productive. I encourage you to concede that going to college is actually a benefit for most people.
But you literally provided no evidence of such a claim.
https://youtu.be/xECUrlnXCqk