Novelist warns against utilitarian trends in higher education - <AUTHOR> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/robinson-humanities-lecture-110315.html <comment> rm_-rf_slash I have maintained for a long time that our society should focus on apprenticeships - not education - as the primary means to gain job skills. There is a place for k-12 and higher ed, but with a BS being the modern entry ticket to the middle class, it will only continue to raise costs for everyone. Subsidizing apprenticeships instead gives people meaningful skills and a decent income, and they don't spend 2-4 years of their working life either not working and sitting in class, or working out of necessity to make ends meet, which is a detriment to their education.

<comment><USER2> In a country that looks down upon unions and guild-like structures meant to protect their workers, you'll never have enough people who trust apprenticeships. Dedicating yourself to one specific task within the private market is too foolish of a thing to do for any smart person in America.

<comment><USER3> That's how most folks get trade jobs now! You work in a shop while taking some classes at community college (welding, bookbinding or whatever). You then get promoted after a couple of years, or even save your money and open your own shop.

<comment><USER4> This directly leads to lots of older workers who only know one skill and can't get a job. Right now States are dumping these people on Social Security Disability to keep them off their welfare / unemployment rolls, because industries are just not that stable and younger workers are healthier and cheaper.

PS: 65 - 18 = 47 years. Just how many bricklayers do you need with 45 years experience and back problems?

<comment><USER5> Besides laying bricks, brick layers who really understand their craft can supervise and train others on proper technique. Here's an excellent article lamenting the lack of "master masons":

      A master architect and a master mason

      Back in 1891, when the Citizens Bank building was under
      construction, there were two essential people on the job
      site. One was the architect. I imagine that the architect —
      someone who clearly cared about water management details —
      visited the job site regularly. The project was also
      blessed with the presence of a master mason — perhaps a
      recent immigrant from Italy — who knew how to sift sand and
      wield a trowel. Both of these people oversaw the work of
      others, and both insisted that every worker on the job site
      needed to adhere to high standards of quality.

      The results of their work included the impeccable mortar
      joints at the Citizens Bank building.

[http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/articles/dept/musings/qu...](http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/articles/dept/musings/quality- issues-brick-buildings)

<comment><USER4> That sounds great, but, we don't have a huge exponential growth rate or short lifespans.

So, you can easily end up with vastly more people with 25+ years' experience than <5 years' experience. That's not a problem for programing or electricians, but for highly physical skills your body breaks down and you don't need 3 supervisors for every worker. For some jobs older workers are simply worse.

Now, with a solid general education these people can move on to less physically demanding work, but trying to plan out the economy 40 years into the future is a bad idea.

<comment><USER6> " _So, you can easily end up with vastly more people with 25+ years' experience than <5 years' experience._"

That seems to be false in practice.

<comment><USER4> Depends on the field. This does happen in fields with low turnover and high longevity. The point is if you want to railroad people into apprenticeship programs you need to limit it to fields that people can do for 30+ years.

Otherwise as I said in a different post you end up handing out medical disability early retirements to lots of people which is extremely expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I used to be an avid reader of Newtekniques magazine, which was required reading for anyone obsessed with Lightwave3D and the Video Toaster. There was Mojo's opinion column on the back page where he mused about rendering, the Amiga, and sometimes things a little deeper.

I remember one column where mojo said (paraphrasing), "I see a lot of people going to film school, learning everything they can about making movies; cameras, lighting, props..."

"Problem is, when they get out of school, they know everything about _how_ to make a film, but no clue what to make a film _about_."

The value of a liberal arts education is the world of stuff you don't know you don't know. You get exposed to a wide range of topics, and you never know what might catch your eye and reach deep inside of you, to your core, beyond technical mastery of a skill.

As an entrepreneur, having empathy and a deep understanding of the humanities is extremely useful throughout your personal journey.

<comment><USER8> Exposed to a wide range of topics for the low price of $23,410 per year ($46,272 in private colleges). No thanks. I'd rather go to the nearest bookstore, library or use the Internet for what's intended.

[http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmp...](http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064)

<comment><USER9> There are plenty of much cheaper (and still good universities). The local one here is $2000 a semester and while it doesn't have prestige, it's a very good all around university.

Also, the Internet makes it easy to learn random things about different topics, it's not very good at guiding you through topics that you didn't know to investigate. It's also not able to force you to study topics you don't want to, or take an entire class worth of material instead of a single Wikipedia article.

<comment><USER10> "It's also not able to force you to study topics you don't want to, or take an entire class worth of material instead of a single Wikipedia article" \- It's entirely possible to cover a class worth of material & study topics you don't want to without paying for someone to help you do that.

I think the point is that given two people that learned a course (say computer science), with one learning formally at a university and the other learning through a combination of sources on the internet, and they both end up with roughly the same knowledge and competence - the one who went to university is likely to have more options open to them.

A system that requires that kind of money to "certify" people of their skills is unfair as it blocks off the chance of certification for a large population of citizens. (-Certification here is one that is accepted by other members of society such as employers).

<comment><USER9> "It's entirely possible to cover a class worth of material & study topics you don't want to without paying for someone to help you do that."

True, but that misses the point. If you expecting to gain a well rounded education, where you learn about many things that you otherwise wouldn't have, then relying only on you're intellectual curiosity will not work for most people I've met. Yes, for the rare auto-didact, they will dive deep on their own time into many different subjects, but in my experience most people I've known (even liberal arts majors) would never look beyond the confines of their chosen area of study.

I can't remember how many times in high school and college I heard classmates grumble about "after I graduate, when will I ever need this". In high school (for me) it was mostly aimed at math classes (I grew up in a very blue collar area where the high school had something like 10% of their students going on the college). They were happier learning history or having to read cliff notes on some novel.

But in college it was usually people in one major complaining that they had to take the "wider world" requirements. Though actually I heard it the absolute most from fellow music majors that had to take a physics class on acoustics.

The reality is so many people see college solely as job prep, and that is a very strong part of what it can do, but (and this is kind of the point of the article) it can function in many other ways. I'm a counter example. I've spent something like 15 years in college. I have two bachelors (philosophy and english), an MFA (creative writing) and and working towards a PhD (math). But I work in computers, and not only do I not have a CS or related degree, the only computer class I ever took was a "wider world" class I had to take (and ironically I groused about it, because I'm already a programmer and manage a staff of programmers and DBAs)

<comment><USER11> Most people entering university have no real-world experience, and thus don't get to see the kind of decision-making that results from the general malaise of careless incompetence caused by over-specialization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's really easy to be agains't utilitarian trends in higher education when:

1) your parents have money

2) you are lucky/skilled enough to make a living off a Humanities degree

Most people are not like that and a Humanities degree is a terrible choice.

There's no self-discovery when your own survival is at stake.

<comment><USER13> She's not talking about humanities majors. She's talking about liberal arts educations.

You can get an engineering degree at a liberal arts college, they just make you take some philosophy/arts/&c. courses also. There is enormous value in this, because people are humans, not merely workers. Liberal arts colleges should do a better job in getting their students technical skills also, though.

<comment><USER14> Of'course humans are just not workers , but if you want to eat you need to sell something of value to buy your food from the farmers - and they most often then not really do not care about your humanities nonsense.

<comment><USER15> The 1971 genocide you commemorate in your username might not have occurred if your culture was a bit more invested in that 'humanities nonsense.'

<comment><USER14> ad hominem attack much ?

Sure - you should have told the British to stay the fuck away from the Indian subcontinent.

<comment><USER15> No, not at all. You seem unclear on the concept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Putting on my cynical hat, the problem is much worse than merely higher education. In the previous Gilded Age, the rapaciousness of our ruling classes was met with a storm of organizing from our working classes. Millions of people worked together to advance their rights and those of others. There were hundreds of civic organizations, political parties and other popular organs being formed.

This time, crickets. Now there is no class consciousnesses, no faith in politics, no collective action of any kind. Something is very different, I don't know what.

<comment><USER17> Many will balk at the idea, but the oligarchy recognized this danger and planned against it since the early 1900's. Hanlon's razor only applies to the middlemen, for the .01% the conspiratorial view of history (based on facts of course) is the correct one.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the- Reece-C...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the-Reece- Committee-on-Foundations-1954)

<comment><USER18> >Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.

-MLK, I've Been to The Mountaintop, last speech the night before assassination

<comment><USER17> I just want to point out how relevant I find your username, or more specifically, Lao Tzu, these days. He is a very undervalued character in philosophy. Also, thanks for the MLK quote. I think for Americans at least, the bill of rights and the constitution should be our unifying point, which in turn is why people who threaten to undermine the division of people, such as MLK, are seen as such huge threats to TPTB.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So, it's nice to think of civics and arts. I think these should be more heavily stressed in k-12. The great majority will go beyond secondary education, so we can "waste" more time on civics, art and morality.

On the other hand, people first and foremost want survival, they want to find a modicum of success in this new world economy. Liberal arts students know all too well how their prospects compare to those of others who chose CS, finance, statistics, etc. Just listen to the bitter kids on npr who rag on the new economy. They feel left out, and they are right, they are falling behind. Their professions of choice are not as prestigious any more.

She can make these claims being an exception at the top. Most people following her would probably feel disappointed at their achievement, if they were to follow.

Higher ed is not like it was 100 - 200 years ago where the idle children of the rich could explore their fancy ideas about civilization and humanity. Most people just want to be employable, that is all.

<comment><USER3> Folks today have it easier, not harder, than folks 100-200 years ago. There's something very wrong if we cannot afford _more_ arts and civics today.

Also, I'm not ready to consign the bulk of the country to a life of labor. Instead of, for instance, exploring what makes us human. Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?

<comment><USER20> I think the point OP is making is that the people who went to University 100-200 years ago didn't have to worry about employability because they were usually from wealthy families. What has happened in the intervening time is that higher education has extended down the income scale and as such more students need jobs at the end of their degrees.

<comment><USER21> The costs have also dramatically risen, so people view their education as an investment as opposed to an interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hate to pull an ad hominem attack, but do we expect any other opinion from someone so entrenched within the existing higher education world?

 _Robinson, who has taught at a number of colleges and universities, including her current position at the Writers ' Workshop at the University of Iowa, identified a troubling trend in higher education today._

Acedemics and hackers alike tend to idealize their choices, and often turn a blind eye to those that don't fit _their_ chosen educational or business model.

Also, "self-discovery" works only for those that have the luxury to explore without the pressures to support themselves or their immediate family.

<comment><USER3> Cuts both ways: makes her an expert at her field, no? Can we now criticize and ignore experts because they're 'entrenched'?

<comment><USER22> Bias is always an important consideration. Yes IMHO we should discount (not ignore) opinions from those heavily entrenched on either side of this argument (which is why I mentioned hackers).

There's no one solution that applies to everyone. Some need "self discovery" but can't afford it, some need job training but are pressured to obtain a degree solely for the prestige.

I'd like to hear from voices without extensive _skin in the game_. This includes the other extreme, such as successful business people who advocate against higher education simply because that's the route they chose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great vision, but it's really the fault of a horrible trend in the liberal arts.

Liberal arts is supposed to be about passing down and building upon wisdom and culture gained over thousands of years.

Instead, at most universities, it's an uncriticized and unaccountable platform for instructors' personal agendas. Political agendas are common, but it's more than that: it's about self-promotion and self-aggrandization.

And the education is more confusing than enlightening. Vague, unintelligible jumbles of keywords pass for brilliance and depth.

I've had really good teachers in liberal arts, and they are amazing. But unfortunately that's the exception rather than the rule.

In other words, fix the liberal arts, and then maybe more people will appreciate them.

</comment><comment><USER24> Good luck with her "watering the desert" analogy while bemoaning the rise of productive disciplines, like civil engineering.

The article reeks of bland arts prejudice -- that it is more noble to be the "educated" artist writing verse about how ghastly a problem must feel like, and then write something even more verse about how dreadful it is that so few read or understood your beautiful words, than the "merely utilitarian" person who understands how to analyse the cause of the problem and is equipped to design and create a means to fix it.

There is nothing inherently less "prepared for citizenship or democracy" about an engineer. And neither, in these design-intensive times, do they necessarily understand humanity or social ills any less than an artist writing about them.

<comment><USER25> I don't think you actually understand what a liberal arts education is. It has very little to do with being an "artist", it has to do with a broad and humanistic--opposing mechanistic--education. Such an education, in my experience, tends to make one interested in creation, and perhaps thus art, but isn't directly related. I have a CS degree and was fortunate to luck into a liberal education--one with grounding in literature, history, economics, sociology, and political science. Not only does it make me better at my day job, because much of it is easily applicable, but it makes me able to meaningfully parse the world around me. Most engineers I know are not particularly good at this--they do not have a liberal education and it shows when one gets outside of a narrow band of small, usually very self-focused interests. (It shows, in the aggressive disregard of history and the corpus of human experience needed to think that the Austrian school, or even your garden-variety libertarian fantasy, has bearing on the real world.)

Your "merely utilitarian" person is not equipped to understand (much less solve) the causes of the problems that she describes. _That 's her point entirely._

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So by this logic, MIT, Caltech, GaTech, Carnegie Mellon, as well as every community college that focuses on real world training is doing a fundamental disservice to our civil society.

I disagree, to say the least.

If everyone were an engineer, that probably would not be such a terrible thing, but if everyone were a novelist, that probably would.

<comment><USER16> I am both. Actually, MIT trained me for both. Everyone ought to be both, a little bit.

<comment><USER26> If you want to throw around _oughts_ and _shoulds_ , I would confine those to the rational/empirical side of the spectrum because that is the very foundation upon which a society may be constructed.

Now, once that society is constructed, all of the other stuff is nice to have, but I would not describe those things in morally imperative terms like that.

<comment><USER16> Eh? No, humanity is not constructed on a rational/empirical basis. For example, most people want children; this is not rational, it's simply the way humans are constructed. We enjoy music. We need sunlight to be happy. We have a desire to live; none of these things are rational, they just are. We have deep-seated fantasies about our position in the world; we imagine ourselves to be heroes in a long-running saga. We cleave the world along the planes of this narrative into 'good' and 'evil'. We hate, despite assurances that the contrary is better, to be told what to do.

Unless we respond to this, our human side, our efforts will always fall dead. We can't construct a society that doesn't acknowledge our humanity and expect that people will want to live in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I feel like everyone in this thread is willfully misunderstanding this article.

Her argument is that it's inherently democratic and leveling to teach the humanities to all students.

Moreover, the humanities contribute to a stronger democracy, whether it's through the development of empathy, or whether it's in the ability to read an argument and understand the writer's point (such as in this article).

And it is the poor students, particular though push into pre-professional degrees, that miss out on this sort of education.

</comment><comment><USER8> _> Now, universities by and large do not attempt to "prepare people for citizenship and democracy." Instead, they educate them to be members of a "docile, most skilled, working class."_

You need to go to liberal arts college to be prepared for citizenship and democracy? Really? If by the time you get to college you're not interested in "humanities", you're very unlikely to get interested after being forced to listen to some mediocre lectures. And make no mistake, that's exactly what the wast majority of students will get.

</comment><comment><USER28> 'The original rationale behind an American liberal arts education – to play a vital role in democratizing privilege – "is under attack, or is being forgotten," Robinson said. Now, universities by and large do not attempt to "prepare people for citizenship and democracy."'

I would like to know what "original" means here, other than "what I think it should be". Harvard was set up primarily to train clergy. The University of Pennsylvania seemed to teach pretty much everything from the start (if I remember my reading correctly). I would very much question whether Thomas Jefferson had the democratization of privilege in mind when he founded the University of Virginia.

</comment><comment><USER29> IMO: teaching people to appreciate culture or be good citizens is something that is nearly impossible (at least with the tools we have now). As it stands, it'd be a waste of everyone's time and money.

There is a lot of talk about how good it is to do this- yes, of course. But there is little talk of whether it is possible or how to make it possible. Comprehension of, say, math: that's something that can more-or-less be measured by a test. How do you measure someone having the attitude of a free thinker? Until practicalities are talked about, I can't see any of this as anything but posturing. There should be pushes for investigation like CFAR does.

<comment><USER30> That's silly, of course it can be taught, and it can even be measured if that's so important to you. Can this person read a text and understand the arguments that are being made? Can this person tease out subtexts and narratives and ideologies in the world around them? Can they write and make themselves understood? Can they follow an argument to its logical conclusions or pick apart failures in an argument? Can they recognize aesthetic and technical choices, or stylistic and intellectual affinities within a work of art? These are all skills necessary to be engaged in civic and cultural life, and they can absolutely be taught.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> You can't require everyone to go to college and then also have it be an academic paradise. People "need" college now to work on Starbucks (which is beyond ridiculous). We've bought into a social narrative where college is a magic wand that makes everything better. Well people want you to _wave the damn wand_ so they can move on with their lives.

</comment><comment><USER32> "Water the desert a little bit and then see what they become"

This many not be the type of watering she is referring to but if you are interested in helping people gain marketable skills I can say from experience it is very rewarding. I recently posted my availability as a mentor in the software job category on Craigslist ($35) and have found 3 great people that are financially poor, but rich in work ethic and motivation.

We have only connected via email, but have already started to make great progress towered their goals. Many of us on this site have great knowledge that might be taken for granted. If people don't have experience many employers will not give them a chance. Being a bridge between the job at Walgreen's to their first industry job is a joy to be a part of.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't have the numbers handy but I'm reasonably sure that more people are studying liberal arts as previously defined than ever before in history. I think there are really two large phenomena that underlie the apparent decline of liberal arts education:

1) More and more people are attending 4-year colleges due to inflation in expectation without necessarily any fundamental change in demand for skills which means 4-years colleges are increasingly forced to perform the roles previously filled by vocational schools and community colleges.

2) As our understanding of the world increases and our technological capability expands, more and more things are brought under the umbrella of STEM. A lot of what counts as science (social sciences, for example) for example would have counted as liberal arts going back a few hundred years. Even much of computer science as we know it today would've fallen somewhere between math and philosophy. Study of languages at one point was an extremely liberal-artsy pursuit, but Linguistics is a quantitative discipline with strong connections to math and computer science. Likewise political science had its roots in political philosophy and humanities but now it's a discipline strongly influenced by statistics, economics and even game theory.

</comment><comment><USER34> The amount of sheer ignorance in this thread is astounding. The political- myopia of tech culture is on full display here...

What is being argued here is that there should be more to an education than a vocation. The purpose of a higher education is to make one a thinking, learned human being. It doesn't matter if you're Knuth when it comes to CS, if you don't have a working knowledge of history and philosophy and political theory, you're uneducated.

Another theme I see is that people have to earn a living so they must learn ONLY STEM. That's false for 2 reasons. The first is that one can do non- utilitarian study in philosophy, for example, while also learning CS to get a job. It is also wrong because it is a reflection of the high cost of an American education that forces people to think about "return on investment". That is the very notion that is being criticized here! Education should not calculated solely in economic terms because there are social returns to it.

The fact of the matter is that it is absolutely disastrous - morally and culturally - to uncritically accept the views of our neoliberal system. The humanities and non-utilitarian education helps you examine the system. That's what ultimately makes the world a better place.

<comment><USER35> Your points are well-argued. They remind me of an article in Harper's, "The Neoliberal Arts"[0] which had a similar effect on me.

Allowing for just the possibility of non-financial rewards of an education shows how shallow our "return on investment" culture is. When we see no value in learning about art, philosophy, history...what does that say about our values?

[0] [http://harpers.org/archive/2015/09/the-neoliberal- arts/](http://harpers.org/archive/2015/09/the-neoliberal-arts/)

<comment><USER24> No, all of society (including the most free-market of conservatives) sees value in learning about art, philosophy, history -- in fact every single one of them at some point will have paid to learn about art, philosophy, history etc (even if it's just going to the theatre or buying a book).

The debate from their perspective is simply that you only seem to see value in learning about art in education if someone else pays for it for you, but not enough to pay for it yourself.

The question of "the value of your education" can never win the argument against privatisation/optimisation of education, because the more "value" there is the more the consumer ought to be willing to pay for it.

The reasons for keeping education largely public and unoptimised are outside of that -- avoiding competition on price (richest-student wins), that the lecturers have a by-product that is useful to society (mulling problems where we don't yet know whether they have value or not and the market cannot price them), getting students from multiple backgrounds to bounce off each other (avoid social silo-isation by discipline) etc.

<comment><USER34> There is no reason to apply economics to education. "Value" is not only monetary. Your post is a prime example of someone who has absorbed the system to an extent that it becomes the very backdrop against which to analyze everything else.

<comment><USER36> Economics is happy to consider value that is not money.

It's a lot harder to deal with, but it isn't somehow excluded from the purview of economics.

It's probably even necessary to make economic considerations when it comes to education. Given limited resources, choosing to put them towards things that return more value probably makes sense.

<comment><USER34> Doing something because it provides a higher "return" is exactly the sort of utilitarian thinking this article is arguing against.

You should really try to see this from a non-monetary, non-utilitarian perspective.

<comment><USER36> I'm not demanding a cost/benefit analysis, I'm simply pointing out that there are real actual resource limitations involved, and that different sorts of education will have different outcomes.

For example, if your desired outcome is self discovery, some education based on indoctrination probably isn't going to work very well. That's a silly example, but choosing between methods and selecting the one that best delivers the result you desire isn't real distinguishable from making an economic choice.

<comment><USER34> Think of education as an end-in-itself, rather than a utilitarian thing that delivers certain outcomes.

I don't know how to make you stop thinking in a utilitarian way. There are other philosophies, you know?

<comment><USER36> I'm pretty sure it can't coherently be an end in itself and deliver no value.

I responded to the juxtoposition here: _There is no reason to apply economics to education. "Value" is not only monetary._

I'm not insisting that you view education through the lens of economics, I was pointing out that what you said about value was not an argument against economics (because economics doesn't care about what form value takes).

You keep looking for a word other than value to describe this thing that you think should happen because then I can't point out that you can analyze it economically, but this is not a way to argue that education should not be analyzed economically, it is a misunderstanding of economics (it was really clear when stated as _" Value" is not only monetary_, but "we should do it just because" is still an imputation of value...).

<comment><USER34> This has turned into a last-word-mine argument, so I'm out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> >Now, universities by and large do not attempt to "prepare people for citizenship and democracy." Instead, they educate them to be members of a "docile, most skilled, working class."

Is she complaining that universities stopped being indoctrination machines and do their actual job as to create professionals?

</comment><comment><USER38> Allan Bloom was lamenting this more than 25 years ago, when college was already not like it used to be:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind)

<comment><USER25> Thank you for this. More people should read Bloom; I was pointed to his work-- by a Ph.D. in political science, as it happens!--and it crystallized a lot of my own severe misgivings about the way we teach (and don't teach).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an excellent book and hasn't dated much at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> For at least as long as we keep bundling diplomas with large amounts of debt, this trend will continue.

</comment><comment><USER40> Imagine if everyone knew a bit of serious first aid. That would be good for society. But if a given person chose not to learn, it probably wouldn't hurt them or those around them at all. I look at general education from this angle: it is for the benefit of society, not just the individual. A critical mass of the population having a grounding in "the arts and sciences" makes us richer as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER41> tl;dr colleges are more focused on getting students employed

<comment><USER15> ...to pay off their massive college debts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is not a new argument. It certainly goes back even before conservative Russell Kirk's 1957 classic, The Inhumane Businessman [1].

It seems to me quite obvious a that the waning of liberal [2] education is a bad thing. But these fashionable leftist laments miss the point and fail to recognize some obvious causes of their own making.

In Kirk's time as now, the motivation to gain immediately marketable skills is a strong one. The difference is that elites like Robinson see such motivations as base and immoral, whereas Kirk saw them as deceptively un-utilitarian.

To the degree that ROI is a driver, the decline in general ed is certainly accelerated by massive price inflation of that last few decades. But there's another reason. The fact is liberal education in most American universities has become a shoddy product. In many, it's become quite illiberal.

This is not abstract for me. I recently helped my son decide on a college. It came down to two: School A, a school that's focussed on more practical topics such as business and engineering. Scarcely one-fifth of the coursework is general social sciences and humanities. And School B, an old and venerated bastion of liberal ed. Both are top 40 national universities.

Now, we had already weeded out all the schools that have entirely thrown over the western cannon for ideologically driven grievance-based curriculum. In other words, our list was pretty small. The last step in our decision process was to visit School B. I was hopeful because I want my son to go deep into great ideas, for the very reasons that Kirk gives.

Then came the orientation. Announcement: we have a new core curriculum.

Wha...?

Students, it turns out, will no longer choose from among courses in history, philosophy, literature, phycology, economics, etc. Now they will all be funneled through a few newly developed "integrated" courses. Courses where Greek classics are compared with Harry Potter. Classes that focus on the dying American Dream. Courses where science and history are now a branches of climate change activism.

No thanks. School A please.

This is what the market looks like when it's working.

[1] [http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/the-inhumane- busi...](http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/the-inhumane-businessman)

[2] It's worth pointing out that "liberal" here means classical liberal, which is nearly the opposite of "liberal" in the context of American politics.

<comment><USER43> > It's worth pointing out that "liberal" here means classical liberal

No, it doesn't, though if you squint really hard you can see a _very_ loose connection between the "liberal" in liberal education and the classical liberalism.

> which is nearly the opposite of "liberal" in the context of American > politics.

No, its not. Both "liberal" and "conservative" in contemporary American political terms have roots in classical liberalism (and both have elements that are hard to reconcile with it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> "Utilitarian" is a trend in all of society. We're all choosing a society that grinds us down, one step at a time.

</comment><comment><USER45> > To "water the desert a little bit and then see what they become," Robinson > said, is the "whole project of American education."

That's always been under contention (in probably most of the world) by competing movements.

The talk of "citizenship" and "American" is also disturbingly nationalistic. (To those lucky enough to have an awareness of nationalism.)

</comment><comment><USER46> Maybe I'm just a person with a very pessimistic outlook on the future of the US and our economy, but I think articles like this are going to be laughed about in 20 years.

Oh no! An faltering economy is emphasizing specialization! The horror! The kids won't discover themselves!</comment>


Ask HN: Good tech sites with user submitted articles - <AUTHOR> Hello, I am constantly on hackernoon.com reading user submitted content. And i have also submitted some which have been published. I was wondering if anyone has other sites which are similar that you can submit articles to be published. But which the content is higher quality, reviewed and approved if good. As other sites i have found where anyone can submit and it is published without any standards/review process are not so good. In the tech field only tho. <comment><USER2> [https://dev.to/](https://dev.to/) is pretty solid

<comment><AUTHOR> that was perfect. thanks for that. Any others you know of?</comment></comment>


First They Took Our Headphone Jack, Now They're Taking Our Volume Buttons - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/first-they-took-our-headphone-jack-now-theyre-taking-our-volume-buttons <comment><USER2> Am I the only one who assumes the volume button is going to go away in order to prevent muting ads?

<comment><USER3> Spotify already does this even with the presence of buttons. If you lower the volume during an ad it will automatically pause, only way to resume is to up the volume again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I cannot wait for the fad of "less ports, less buttons, less options" to end.

<comment><USER5> I still remember the fad of "let's see how many weird things we can cram onto a cell phone". It led to some pretty cool if impractical phones. Every phone I've gotten seems to be just a step towards less and less physical buttons each time. The physical home button was the last one to go I'm pretty sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I always thought sonys physical quick access camera button was an underappreciated good idea.

<comment><USER7> My LG has a dedicated Google button. I wish I could remap it for other purposes, but I haven't found a way.

<comment><USER8> have you tried the latest tasker update? there's an option to remap the bixby button on my phone, I just hadn't got around to doing it yet as theres a few things they need to be done first like plugging into a computer and entering some ADB command

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > But no matter what, we will have to cope with the fact that they are taking > our buttons away, just like they took the physical keyboard and the > headphone jack. And eventually, they will eliminate the screen itself, too.

Is that when we've implanted direct interfaces into our brains? How far off is that?

<comment><USER10> Contact lenses and voice control i would guess. Artificial eyes also.

<comment><USER11> In an ad-laden world, I'm not signing up for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > If phone makers really work out any potential accidental touch issue

Doesn't seem very likely. Maybe if you keep your phone in a purse or wallet, and you're not very active. I can't leave the 'touch screen to wake' setting on with my phone because it is always trying to butt dial emergency numbers.

</comment><comment><USER13> In 2016, Explained Casually had a prediction about the future: One day, Apple will release the iPhone X, a solid block of featureless aluminum. This article indicates Xiaomi might beat Apple to it!

YouTube: Casually Explained-The Future(2016)[1m:16s]: [https://youtu.be/8BeCFWh1Auc](https://youtu.be/8BeCFWh1Auc)

</comment><comment><USER14> Amazing how people complain that there is no innovation in the phone space, and then when there is innovation they complain about that. No, you can't have buttons on that foldable display. Yes, a wrap around display means you'll have to do without physical buttons.

</comment><comment><USER8> what would be the financial benefit of this though? taking away the headphone jack meant that people would buy said phone manufacturers bt headphones but would they be selling here? will apple be selling a button dongle?

</comment><comment><USER15> tomsguide.com not to be confused with tomshardware.com

</comment><comment><USER16> Waterproof and 3.5mm headphone jack can't exist together. Simple as that.

<comment><USER17> Incorrect. Samsung phones have been waterproof for a while despite having a 3.5mm headphone jack.

<comment><USER18> I thought they had a patent on it, however, I haven't been able to find anything...</comment></comment></comment>


Fundamental attribution error - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error <comment><USER2> I took a class taught by Lee Ross.

The main real-world topic used in that class to illustrate a lot of this stuff was "peace in the middle east." For example, no matter what was printed in the NY Times it was perceived as obviously skewed as being either wildly pro- israel or wildly pro-palestinian... depending on the affiliations of the people reading it. Literally the same article.

The idea that everyone deeply believes that media (or other people/organizations etc) are deeply skewed/biased, yet the nature of the perceived bias varies in _opposite_ ways depending on their personal beliefs, is kind of depressing.

The meta-theme I sort of got from that class was that social psychologists like Dr. Ross genuinely got into the field wanting to change the world and help people to end wars etc. through applied social science. However, the more research they did, and the more they really understood the deep, deep psychological factors driving things like conflict in the middle east, the more they realized that this is a lot harder than they could have ever imagined. (fwiw, that is purely my personal take on the class, but there was definitely a tone underlying the whole thing.)

<comment><USER3> The part about everyone reading bias into a statement immediately reminded me of the recent thread on language advocacy, discussed at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1105087> . Being objective is hard!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Corporations and the government take advantage of this all the time by claiming that anything that goes wrong is the result of "a few bad apples," when in reality the causes of the problems are mostly systemic.

Of all the cognitive biases that are used to maintain the status quo and allow those with power to exploit those without, this is probably the most effective.

</comment><comment><USER5> again: the skeptics bible. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases>

<comment><AUTHOR> You missed one: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases>

<comment><USER5> oooh, that's a great one. does the hindsight bias article link to it? it should.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe the opposite error is also often made. I suspect many a time governments or large corporations act in ways which people interpret in situational terms, as a reflection of some underlying plans and strategic goals, while in reality it's just a decision made by some person at power based on their individual beliefs and personality traits.

</comment><comment><USER7> One interesting point a proffessor of mine once made on the topic: _The phrase "If I were them, I would.." is meaningless. If you were them, if you had an identical upbringing and identical genetic material, you would behave exactly as they do._

<comment><USER8> I think your professor misinterpreted the phrase, I always assumed its usage meaning something like this: If you blasted that stupid forward to pieces and teleported me on the soccer field ten seconds ago I would have passed to a different player.

<comment><USER9> Yes. It may be funny to observe that a phrase literally means the opposite, or is meaningless, etc., but generally there is a real meaning which everyone understands.

<comment><USER8> There is a point, though, to the professor's criticism, and it's a subtle one.

The teleported soccer fan probably wouldn't be able to pass the ball to any player at all. No problem, he says, I will just imagine myself in the same physical condition as the scolded player. But would that be enough?

If you want to be good at playing soccer you need to know about tactics and strategy, you need the experience of hundreds of games. Can the soccer fan just imagine himself having all that and still be sure whether he would have passed to a different player? Probably not. Why would all those changes to his brain keep the part intact with which he just decided which would have been the best pass?

I might be committing a fundamental attribution error by concentrating too much on the brain side of things, though. Situation can be the other and maybe even more straightforward reason why the teleported soccer fan would probably fare not much better than the player. The fan has a bird eye's view, multiple camera angles and instant replay, the player doesn't. The fan is sitting in the pub, the player is running around. And so on.

You might want to be careful when using this phrase, then. Maybe yell something like: "The optimal pass which maximally increases the chance of scoring a goal would have been to pass to that other player, you idiot!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> note: this is culture-specific phenomenon

[http://journal.psych.ac.cn/jinzhan/qikan/Cpaper/zhaiyao.asp?...](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/jinzhan/qikan/Cpaper/zhaiyao.asp?bsid=11426)</comment>


APL is more French than English (1978) - <AUTHOR> https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/perlis78.htm <comment><USER2> > Others say what APL needs is a little bit of Franglais, which in our terms > is APLGOL. "If APL only had the while-statement, or the if-then-else, or the > for-statement, it would become such a perfect language." That's ridiculous. > And it's silly to say that if APL had arrays of arrays, all of our troubles > would disappears. In point of fact, what will happen is that the amount of > troubles would just grow almost exponentially if that happened.

And it turns out that the troubles do not increase exponentially when you make some concessions. I think kdb+/q is a great middle-ground between APL/J and regular programming languages. Retains most of the good stuff, but is simpler to learn (no rank), and can be used in a functional or imperative style if desired.

One day, I think we'll realize that we're on the wrong path, and array languages will reign supreme. Until then I guess I'll have to suck it up and resign myself in dealing with the huge and inefficient monstrosities we software developers have created.

<comment><USER3> I do love array based languages, I think we see numpy/pytorch/jax filling that space.

Maybe Empirical or Pure can take some of the spotlight

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If curious see also

2018 (4 comments) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18640451](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18640451)

2011 (1 comment) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3411646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3411646)</comment>


AtomPair: Atom.io plugin for remote pair-programming - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pusher.com/atom-pair/

<comment><USER2> Nice, would be very useful if you are sitting next to someone and they have a problem they can't fix then you can just pair up and help look through the code.

Edit: is there a way to do something similar in sublime text 3, or between a sublime text 3 and atom user?

<comment><USER3> Hadn't thought of it and didn't plan it but that's a good idea. Fancy giving it a try?</comment></comment>


Foodora fires courier for refusing to quit workers' chat group - <AUTHOR> http://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/foodora-fires-courier-for-refusing-to-quit-workers-chat-group-20180314-h0xg33#ixzz59hqBEtX1 <comment><USER2> Many companies fire workers for talking about unionizing or trying to unionize. This likely had similar motivations.

Either way, what a sleazy move on Foodora's part.</comment>


Widow of Tesla crash gives interview - <AUTHOR> http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusive-wife-of-man-who-died-in-tesla-crash-gives-emotional-interview-to-i-team/3325177/ <comment><AUTHOR> Apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in AP2 per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2])

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E) Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA) MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1

1\. [https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil...](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopilot_barrier_lust_201812/) "works for 6 months with zero issues. Then one Friday night you get an update. Everything works that weekend, and on your way to work on Monday. Then, 18 minutes into your commute home, it drives straight at a barrier at 60 MPH."

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I)</comment>


The case for national paid maternity leave - <AUTHOR> https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/05/18/the-case-for-national-paid-maternity-leave/ <comment><USER2> The study seems to confirm the economic benefits associated with paid parental leave.

> On the flip side, some studies have shown less positive effects, such as > encouragement of employer bias against women of childbearing age in lower- > paying or part-time jobs.

It makes 0 sense to not have paid parental leave by law. Government assistance in the form of medicare assistance etc. should be provided to lower income parents or those that don't have access to employer sponsored healthcare. Apart from the economic and ethical argument, if we want the next generation of Americans to have happy, healthy childhoods, it seems imperative to provide as much assistance as possible to enable that environment.

<comment><USER3> I live in a country with paid maternal leave and paid paternal leave up to an extent.

I've always been in favor of it but since I have joined the workforce I'm kinda on the fence if not against it.

The amount of people exploiting it is enormous (at least where I live). I have seen some time up precisely their pregnancies to maximize time off work, but still getting paid 100%. Others getting pregnancy leave while planning to resign the day they have to come back to work, sucking up all that their employer has to give and then leaving him.

Employer bias exists for a reason, and it is precisely the existence of this behavior.

The ways in which a system like this can be exploited, in my opinion, are countless and far outweigh the benefits. And since maternal leave is paid for with tax money, I as a taxpayer, am against use of public money to fund private activities.

If _anyone_ , be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning, it is not my problem to solve.

<comment><USER4> > _If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor > financial planning, it is not my problem to solve._

I have a lot of trouble believing that people would _time_ their pregnancies specifically to screw over their employer. That's so outrageous to me that it casts a lot of doubt, in my mind, to your entire reply.

Of course: if any business has poor relationships with their employees, it is not my problem to solve.

<comment> barry-cotter People want free money. If the system allows them to get money and inconvenience their employer or do neither they will overwhelmingly do it. I can't be the only person to note that teachers are much more likely to have children during the school year than over the summer.

<comment><USER5> I think it's less defensible that people want free money than it is than corporations want free money. Because fundamentally lots of people don't want to live off handouts.

It's kinda telling that economics treats trained workers as something that springs into existence unbidden. While raising children is mere 'leisure' and government funded education is dead weight loss.

<comment> barry-cotter > It's kinda telling that economics treats trained workers as something that > springs into existence unbidden. While raising children is mere 'leisure' > and government funded education is dead weight loss.

Every word above is false. Gary Becker's economics of the family has many, many flaws but assuming children happen by accident is not among them. Leisure is not "mere" in economics. It's everything that's not work. It's what work is for. The point is not the production; it's the consumption. If we could do the latter without the former sustainably that would be paradise. There are none, zero, no economists who think government education _is_ dead weight loss. Even Bryan Caplan of _The Case Against Education_ thinks it's at least 30% human capital building and it's glaringly obvious after the past few weeks that the child minding function of school is enormously valuable.

<comment><USER5> I work off the following. What drives policy is the core. Everything else is mere words.

In practice economists assign a value of zero to child rearing. Because simply economists hate reasoning about externalities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a strong case, but it still feels like a band-aid on the wound that is normalized double income households. My wife is a novelist. She chose to do that so she could have flexibility to stay home with children. It helps that she's a fantastic writer. I chose my current job because of 6 weeks paternity leave, as we plan on having several more children. I recognize my immense privilege being able to make choices like these, but it was not without sacrifices. For the first few years of our marriage we could have easily doubled our income if we were both working.

All this to say, is a return to single income households wanted, reasonable or possible? I can't help but feel that "working" and "raising children" is having your cake and eating it too.

<comment><USER7> I think about this a lot too because my family could live off of my income alone. We might move to this at some point, but for now my wife prefers to work. That said, I'm genuinely curious if "single income households" were ever a norm, or if it was only a norm for the upper class (or perhaps for the middle class for a very short time, such as for a few decades in the 20th century).

<comment><USER8> For married couples, the US has seen an increase in women working for pay from 30% participation to 60% participation from 1955 to present.

[https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Labor-Force- Parti...](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Labor-Force- Participation-of-women-in-the-US-1955-2005-750x415.png)

So there was a while when most married women with kids stayed home.

<comment><USER7> No doubt, but I suspect that the mid 20th century is a historical anomaly. I'm also surprised that only 60% of women work for pay at present.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> the case for national paid parental leave -- that's right, parental leave, not just maternity leave -- is that it's a standard feature of developed countries.

the US will start to see more and more brain drain to other developed countries until some basic aspects of the social contract here are corrected. we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce.

there's no reason for highly educated people to stay here or immigrate to here when their quality of life will be significantly worse than elsewhere because our basic suite of mandatory and ubiquitous social amenities are entirely absent.

<comment><USER10> The brain drain is heavy in the other direction (towards the US from elsewhere), and doesn't seem to be slowing down. As long as the US can pay far higher salaries than other countries, the social benefits are irrelevant for the high performers.

> we'll also see fewer highly-skilled immigrants wanting to join our workforce

The high skilled people would earn far more in the US than elsewhere, and get a lot of benefits as part of their high paying job. It's difficult to see the brain drain to the US stopping, let alone the reverse brain drain you forsee.

<comment><USER11> I will add to your point that high salaries + not losing it all to taxes is the kind of equation that matters. Some developed countries with strong social policy have reasonably high salaries, but much lower after taxes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I work for a company that offers 6 months maternity and paternity at full pay to all employees from day 1 of employment. This covers adoption too. Parents can take additional unpaid or statutory paid leave as desired.

As you might imagine it is a company that people want to work for, that retains staff and that has a good work life balance. In most roles asking to work compressed or reduced hours is a possibility.

Even though I missed out on this perk personally, it makes me happy to work at a place that treats employees so well, and doesn't hold people back just because they want to have a family.

Compared to other companies I've seen, far more women here return to the workplace after having children.

</comment><comment><USER13> I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional and possibly practical level.

I do wonder, though, if it's really fair to households that choose to have one stay at home parent ... so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent who is also staying at home, but used to work?

It seems confusing.

Edit: I guess I'm wondering, should we by this logic extend a salary, even if temporary, to all new parents?

<comment><USER14> Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby" present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's health and getting back to work ASAP.

So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity leave.

<comment><USER15> I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation.

The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.

<comment><USER14> I(and pretty much anyone that pays taxes) pay into all sorts of programs the indivudual will never use, so I don't really see how fairness of payment comes into play.

<comment><USER11> one aspect would be that some households would collect 2 Parental leaves, others only 1.

Canada has a program to address this where it defines 18 months parental leave across both parents and allows them to choose how to allocate (ie one can transfer their leave to the other).

Keep in mind that developed world parental leaves are usually < 100% salary and upto a fixed maximum. Eg: Canada parents get 33 per cent for up to 61 weeks

[https://archive.is/ymOa8](https://archive.is/ymOa8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Somehow, all the comments assumed that the article meant parental leave. The article said "maternity leave," and showed a stereotypical photo of mother with child. The PR piece was written by Patty, and the study by Amy. Amy's hobbies listed on her Stanford page include -- and I kid you not -- "learning how to cook." She's a member of several girl's-only clubs.

This would have been wonderfully progressive in 1960.

(As with most posters, I'm 100% in support of universal parental leave. However, something about this whole thing feels like a bizarre parody piece.)

</comment><comment><USER17> I've always looked at it from the baby's perspective. It seems unjust that we would deprive our youngest citizens of time with their parents during such a critical stage in their life.

<comment><USER18> The problem some people have, like myself, is while I (sort of) agree with that sentiment I am confused why I should have to subsidize/support other peoples' decision to breed. I have no children and have no plans to have children, so I will never be afforded this sabbatical, but currently I have a significantly increased workload because someone else just went out on 6 months of maternity leave. Kids can be great, but I truly struggle to grasp why my quality of life has to suffer so that someone I have never met can sit at home with a baby. It does not compute.

<comment><USER19> The long term societal benefits of supporting people who are raising children are obvious. If you don't care about the future of your city/country/species then you'll need to accept that you hold a relatively fringe viewpoint that is not going to be represented in government policy.

<comment><USER20> How about this position - being against paid family leave like this but being for tax-funded professional parents.

IE, train and treat parenting as much of a profession as it honestly rightly deserves, let people specialize and pursue a career in parenting, and then have them be parents as a full time job, paid the same way public schools are.

Because lets be honest - humans evolved to be carried around by their parents in communal groups while nomading around Africa. Its why babies cry when separated and are designed to be constantly attached to someone for most of their first year of life. They aren't even meant to sleep apart from their parents. There is enough sociological evidence that pretty much _any_ form of the stereotypical family unit in any socioeconomic sphere causes trauma to infants because of how they are deprived of their biologically imperative socialization and physical interaction. It goes so far as there being evidence that babies become so anxious because they are stationary - they have a biological impetus to move, that a moving family is safe and to stop moving is dangerous. Its why most calm down if you walk them around in circles holding them.

I think there is also an argument that subsidizing reproduction when there is appreciable demand to immigrate to your country is at least racially biased if not wholly unethical, but thats another ramble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One problem with this article (and many others) is it confounds the benefits of taking leave with _paid leave_. I don't think there is a strong challenge against women taking a break after giving birth, but there is a moral/values argument about who pays for it.

Potential sources of funding include:

        1. Government (on various levels)
        2. Employer
        3. Savings
        4. Debt (maternity loans?)
        5. Partner/Father, other family

We'd have to control for and examine interventions in the sources of funding to determine if governmental paid leave for all is a good policy.

Sadly the article also focuses, myopically, on just maternity leave instead of Parental leave. afaik it's proven that children do better with 2 parents present. (lets ignore gender arguments for a moment and see the obvious-- access to twice the parental figures will be more robust and have more resources)

</comment><comment><USER21> Company I worked for a number of years ago publicly announced they had paid parental leave for all employees.

Then I applied for it and they said "no it is just for the people in California". So I had to take unpaid leave.

Whatever happens it needs to be on a national level.

</comment><comment><USER22> If we're to successfully drive wage equality, we can't make mistakes like allowing employers to use maternity leave as an excuse to depress wages by gender. The only two ways to fix this are to eliminate (this option is untenable) parental leave _or_ to make maternity leave apply to everybody.

Besides, give both parents the ability to support a family during those formative months and the next generation will be healthier for it.

</comment><comment><USER23> First world nations have mind-boggling tax revenue, so they should fund programs like paid family leave and higher education (within reasonable limits).

(I feel like humanity is inexorably tending towards the attitude "everything should just be provided to us, no questions asked", so I really hope full- scale automation happens in my lifetime. I think it's the best way we can maximize happiness across the planet.)

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder what the difference would be between a national program vs state specific programs. Or maybe even a national system supplemented on a state by state basis.

I mean, right now, I live in a state that has no family leave, but I work in a state that does, for a company that does. I've got no idea what I'm really entitled to, and it's hard to get a hold of HR to get me a straight answer...

</comment><comment><USER25> One could make a case that the nation was better off when not everyone was forced into being a two income household and more parents stayed home to raise their children. Closer knit families, better long term relationships, more skills and wisdom passed down from generation to generation.

Paid maternity leave doesn't fix time apart from your children over the first two decades of their life.

</comment><comment><USER26> Having those that cannot or will not have children directly pay for other people's salary is unnecessary and arguably unjust. 2-6 months salary is not an insignificant amount of money.

It would make more sense to be paid entirely by additional income taxes on those who file taxes with dependents, or those who benefited from this program in the past.

</comment><comment><USER27> For whatever reason, I had always thought that paid maternity leave was available universally in all countries. I hadn't even fathomed that the opposite could be true.

America continues to surprise me.

</comment><comment><USER28> Instead of paying more in taxes to fund other people's wives to go on a maternity leave, I'd rather use that money for my wife.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the case for parental leave is pretty obvious: we want healthy children. Not only are babies difficult to take care of, but frequently want to be constantly held. If you want a healthy society and to ensure that your next generation: is healthy, has more opportunities to climb the ladder, lower crime rates (more healthy home environments), etc, then you want parental leave.

I don't think anyone on the left disagrees. But I don't understand why the right shouldn't. These things also make a lot of economic sense. It is like a mutual fund where we're investing in our next generation. Returns are even proportional to your investment. If you're wealthy you're likely to either own a business or stocks (or both!). You get a return by efficient workers who make businesses grow. This has a clear effect on GDP (I'd actually give similar arguments for education and health care, but I don't want to deviate too much from the topic (p.s. I don't identify as a socialist either)).

As to why I'm saying parental leave and not just maternity leave, I'm worried about consequences of just maternity leave. Having just maternity leave does generate bias towards women because... well women are the only ones that give birth. On the other hand, a parental leave should generate less bias because males will have to be given the same leave (I don't think it'll completely wash out the bias towards women, but I suspect it would decrease it). This should also have obvious consequences of reducing stress in relationships (again, leading to lower crime because better households) and especially less stress for women, who are (given social norms) the primary care givers of children.

TLDR: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

</comment><comment><USER30> Happy to be in favor of this as long as there's an equivalent benefit for those who are childless.

For anyone downvoting: People should be incentivized to avoid having kids. It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to combat climate change.

<comment><USER31> > It's without question the absolute best thing a random American can do to > combat climate change

Climate change doesn't matter if there are no people left.

<comment><USER32> We are in zero danger of dying out as a species due to a low birth rate. The Earth is massively overpopulated and the _only_ ethical way to combat that is to incentivize everyone, equally, to not have children.

<comment><USER31> > The Earth is massively overpopulated

Source?

<comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

The combination of our global population and our resource consumptions per capita have devastated ecologies the world over and led to the deaths of innumerable species and biospheres.

You basically have the choice, then - massively reduce the resources consumed per-capita such that having billions of people doesn't negatively impact the planet or displace the last remnants of nature unsullied by human encroachment, or reduce the population so that the people you do have can consume resources without causing a mass extinction event.

When population reduction is as simple as "stop having kids" that is by far the least harmful mechanism to currently living humans to mitigate the ongoing disaster we are causing the planet. Trying to tell the current first world or developing countries to stop building roads, driving cars, building houses, using convenience products like plastics, stop building technologies that require scarce rare earth minerals that require extraction, stop using electric power in its myriad forms, etc is way more disruptive and harmful to those living today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Now that we have same-sex marriage, making it only maternity leave is unjustifiably discriminatory against same-sex unions, not to mention against nonbinary parents. Making this leave completely gender-neutral is simply the simplest, most reasonable option.

</comment><comment><USER34> Only in the US does such a case need to be made.

</comment><comment><USER35> Fine if the government pays for it.

<comment><USER36> We all pay for it, one way or another. The article argues that paying for it on a systemic level has what would probably amount to significant cost savings.

There's precedent with unemployment for having employers pay an insurance premium to the state. That model seems like it might work here.

<comment><USER37> Unemployment insurance only applies for full-time hires though doesn't it? Lots of companies will try to keep part-time employees from becoming full-time so that they don't have to pay for benefits like these. Same with gig-economy and contract-based workers.

<comment><USER38> Im 1000% in favor of mandatory parental leave, but that's the risk: it incentivizes companies to try shift their labor force into gigs and contract roles as much as they can get away with.

In 2012, I was canvassed by a McCain supporter who voted for Obama in 2008, but was disillusioned after his employer reduced his hours just below the threshold of the ACA requirement; he was forced to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet, neither of which provided healthcare. I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Tea Party / Trump backlash was in reaction to this sort of collateral damage: ACA helped many, but also left some worse off, even if employers and/or insurance companies should bear the primary blame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't think it should be on my shoulders to pay for someone else deciding to breed, and I wouldn't expect them to pay for me. Over population is going to kill this planet and people are still breeding like rabbits.

<comment><USER31> > Over population is going to kill this planet

Source on this very big claim?

<comment><USER40> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth)

<comment><USER41> Except the population is not exponentially growing...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Crowdsourcing Study of 30,000 Images Connects Genes to Brain Size - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534346/crowdsourcing-study-of-30000-images-connects-genes-to-brain-size/

<comment><USER2> A nice summary by Science magazine: [http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/01/eight-genes- make-...](http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/01/eight-genes-make-us- brainiacs)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you document your software? - <AUTHOR>

We are looking for a web-based solution for internal, and maybe external, documentation for our software.  If you have any recommendations, we greatly appreciate it.  TIA <comment><USER2> At the company I work at we use HeaderDoc by Apple for our documentation (or at least I do). [https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Devel...](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/HeaderDoc/intro/intro.html)</comment>