The value of education

I can't decide which article in the Herald today shat me off more. Was it Our degrees don't repay their cost or Wanted: inquiring minds or Our degrees are not paying? My mental jury is out, but I think cranking Bob Jones' blathering opinion as if it's a story does take the cake.



The annoying part is that I generally agree with all three stories, in technical detail. It's pretty clear that tertiary education has a long term financial payoff that has devalued as tertiary education has become so pervasive. Coupled with the high cost of actually putting oneself through it, of course the pay-off is not as huge as it once was. What is annoying is that the articles have so little contextualization. It's not noted, for instance, that the problem with NZ degrees might not be the degrees, but the weak NZ economy. No other value of the tertiary training is considered than the purely financial aspects.

Even then, the conclusion is that actually the degrees do pay off, that they do, across the average lifetime, make more money than the degrees cost. "Little net effect" might be insignificant to a statistician, but an extra $30,000 across one's life, coupled with the opportunity to participate in higher education, is still a highly rational choice. Certainly no mention is made of that idea that people might have actually enjoyed getting their qualifications as goods in themselves, or that having a very large number of people with extensive training might have been good for the nation in non-economic ways.

Bob Jones is annoying mostly because he just has no skin in the game. It's easy to tell people not to get a technical degree, but to go study history instead, when you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than facing the dole queue with a big student loan, during the longest recession in 80 years. Just because he personally might hire one out of every ten thousand history graduates (to do what? He never says) doesn't really make a compelling case. He really doesn't have any useful ideas. I remember him trotting that shit out in the mid 90s, about how he'd rather hire a philosophy graduate, right at the time I couldn't find any work whatsoever with that exact qualification. Computer science, on the other hand, has kept me in decent money for 20 years. So much for the anecdata.

The level of sophistication in Herald columns on education is appalling. They get better writing in their outraged commentary. There's something I can't put my finger on - a smugness perhaps? It seems to be a rag catering to insecure middle-aged-to-old people, stroking their anxieties to sell fat copy.

Tutorials are officially shitting me off now

I'm going to downgrade my evaluation of maths tutorials so far from educationally useless to having negative educational utility (for me, in both cases). I had to go in just for a tutorial, both yesterday and today. In an hour, I got through about as much as I would in 20 minutes if I were studying on my own. Yesterday, I drove in and parked there, so the travel time was 30 minutes and the cost was $4 for the parking and about $5 for the petrol. So I got 20 minutes worth of study done in 90 minutes and  it cost me $9. Today, I parked and bussed, so the petrol cost is a little less, covered by the extra bus cost, but there was no parking cost. However, the travel time was doubled. So I got 20 minutes of study done in 120 minutes, and it cost me around $5. I justified the extra 30 minutes by thinking I'd work on an assignment in the labs after the tutorial. But unfortunately MatLab would not work in the labs, so I had to come home to use it.

If these were outlying data points I'd ignore them, but unfortunately, I have not yet had one single tutorial out of the 20-odd I've now attended, that were worth the opportunity (and real) cost. So far as I can tell, they exist to extract free tutoring out of the motivated students, to give it to the other ones.

First half semester as mature student

Mature student. Such a euphemism for "old bugger". Everything about it feels surreal, since being an old bugger has never been how I see myself.

Studying Again

I recently resumed study at the University of Auckland. Having found that my PGDipSci that I began in the 90s was now too long ago and would have to be restarted, I questioned whether more computer science was actually something I wanted to do. If I want to work as a computer programmer, it might make sense, although, to be honest, just doing that would make even more sense. More to the point, I'm not much interested in the stuff they teach at Master's level in that subject any more, and very much more interested in a lot of other things.

What to study?

So I decided to start a science degree. Starting in the middle of the year is nearly impossible for most of the science subjects, as the first half subjects work as prerequisites, with the exception of mathematics, which is so core to science that every first year paper is offered every semester. Since that is the subject I feel needed the most brushing up, I enrolled in "Advancing Mathematics", a Pure Maths paper for people who want to take maths further, and also "Modelling and Computation", which is Applied Maths. The course adviser actually told me I could go straight to Stage 2 if I wanted, but frankly I didn't feel confident enough in the Pure Maths to do that. I felt it likely that Applied Maths could be a little too easy, given my computing background, but couldn't be sure, and figured that it wouldn't hurt to have a thorough grounding.

First setback

I also enrolled in Physics subject "Sustainable Energy", but when my kids got sick in the second week of the semester, requiring me to miss all lectures, then I got sick the next week, and missed another week, I felt that a 75% of full time course load might be too ambitious. So I dropped the Physics, which was only for interest and non-advancing, and anyway, the textbook was online and I read the whole thing on the bus to lectures. It's interesting, but actually, nah, I'll have my $700 back, cheers.

The courses

My guesses both turned out to be right about maths. I have found the Advancing Mathematics course refreshingly challenging, having not studied any calculus for 20 years. And I've found the Applied Mathematics extremely easy. I decided instead of taking it for granted, I'd "overlearn" it, paying very close attention to every detail. I might as well get one A+ in my academic history. The mathematics side of it is at least interesting, I've never studied difference equations before, and I am one of those people who clicks to mathematical ideas from practical examples, which is what the subject is all about. I think it could end up being a lot more interesting in the long run, and very useful for other science.

Advancing Mathematics is hard! The lectures are at a blistering pace, the examples worked through are extremely tricky, and the amount of subject matter is huge, for the time given. Presumably well prepared school students aren't finding it quite as tricky as me, not having to relearn calculus. Then again, ironically, I seem to find some of the ideas easier than most people, perhaps because I'd forgotten calculus (at least in the detail - I do know what it's for and what can be done with it). So the excruciating attention to detail on limits and inequalities and the minor theorems that contribute to why calculus works were really interesting to me. I remember 20 years ago being very frustrated by them, being in a great rush to find use for maths, and finding the very idea of proving the underlying formulae boring and pointless. This time around, I can see the point, I can see that pure maths is the business of laying out the bleeding obvious in such detail that the things that aren't bleeding obvious can be found.

The teachers

The lecturer, Wendy Stratton, is fantastic. It's a pretty hard thing to make a subject like this come alive, especially at the speed that is required. She has a rare gift in being able to explain the mathematics without losing any precision, and to make students feel involved in the process, without leading them by the nose all the time. Perhaps it's just a streaming thing, that the students are the self-selected higher achievers, but I don't think so. It's almost a cliche that maths lecturers are meant to be boring or incomprehensible, at all times. Not Wendy.

I won't judge the other teacher. When you find a subject really easy, it's hard to keep perspective. She seems to teach at a snail's pace, doing endless examples. I'm probably doing a subject I shouldn't be - the other students seem to find it challenging. Word is that the second half steps up in difficulty, when it comes to modelling lots and lots of problems. I'm thinking I'll end up liking that, so an easy intro is probably a good thing.

Student life

Mostly, I'm missing out on campus life. I just don't have time - childcare and housework is at least 7 hours of every day, and there's an hour of traveling. I park and ride, either on bus or bike, leaving the van in the closest place I can find an all day free park. This is usually Kingsland. For such a short ride, I don't need to change clothes. On some days, when I have only one lecture, I'll just park on a 90 min zone outside the lecture theater and go home afterward. At home I have all the resources from University I need, internet, printer, MatLab, and the hideously large textbook for maths.

So most days I get about 3 hours that aren't lectures, and I spend them basically studying, or doing assignments, which are the best way of studying anyway. Only recently did I discover the SciSpace, which is set up specifically as a study area for science students, with minor kitchen facilities, and have actually found familiar faces to work through the harder problems with. 

Tutorials

Gotta say it, maths tutorials aren't really very interesting. The range of things considered is not wide, and you're either right or lost. They're a far cry from, say, a philosophy tutorial. They actually have a rule in the pure maths tutorials that you get marked down if the tutor doesn't hear a hubbub of voices from your group. This is necessary because otherwise people tend to study silently on their own. It's the kind of subject where that works. It actually requires a lot of effort to discuss the problems, since usually you're just putting on display how you're lost or stuck, and those who aren't lost or stuck are thus being delayed by you.

Why do they insist on it, then? This has changed since I studied years ago. It seems that pure mathematicians have finally realized that there is value in social interaction, even in their subject, that a group does actually find things faster, and learn better. I'm not sure, but I have a humorous impression that this might be an amazing theorem that one of them stumbled upon recently, and that they are struggling out of their autistic shells under the power of the logic that drove them in there in the first place. 

Applied Maths tutorials are all lab computer work. Generally I've cranked out the solutions in 20 mins, and I spend the rest of it helping other people. It's been a good way to meet the other students, actually. Interaction doesn't need to be forced. I finally met another mature student! Not feeling quite so weird any more.

Better get back to my swot.