But how can it be that EAs see so much wrong with the education system, while also spending so much time in university
A key claim in this post seems to be that the vast majority if not all EAs see higher education as broken and that they only go to signal their ability. Is there sufficient evidence for this claim? Maybe the claim is true, but the only evidence you provide is anecdotal and based on a single meet up.
Is it possible, even if that claim is true, that a minority of people really benefit from the higher education system and have a great impact on the world through it? Perhaps top academics? I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question, but I think it’s another important one to ask. If the answer is “yes” then perhaps the existence of the current higher education system is justified, but in a smaller form.
Thanks for writing this :) I certainly agree that the education system isn’t optimal and maybe only useful to a handful of people. However, I’d like to provide myself as a data point of someone who actually thinks they benefit from their education. I’m worried that people might sometimes come away with the feeling that they’re doing something wrong and pointless when going to uni/only doing signalling when that’s not true in some cases.
I’m a bit of an outlier in that I’m actually in my second bachelor’s degree and I definitely don’t want to claim that that’s a good idea for everyone. The first one was from a not well known University and my current degree is at a prestigious university. After my first year at my current university I was offered a job at an EA organization and after a lot of deliberation turned it down. I’m not sure that was the right choice but I still think I got a lot of benefits from continuing my degree. Here are some examples for why:
I learned a lot about writing. I got a ton of practice and feedback (both 1-2x a week). I don’t think this would have been possible otherwise.
Last term, I took a course in Philosophy of Cognitive Science: There’s a good chance I would have wanted to spend some time on the same topics in my free time for EA-ish reasons. My tutor pushed back and improved my thinking a lot and in a way that I frankly don’t expect most of the people in my EA circle to do. I hope this also helps me evaluate the quality of discussion and arguments in EA a bit although I’m not sure if that’s a real effect.
I often see the argument advanced that you could just learn much more effectively in your free time. I’m slowly arriving at a point at which I think I would probably continue learning and working on my own. However, when I started studying that was certainly not the case. It’s really hard to self study (for many). I think many and probably the majority of people really benefit from the structure that forces you to do something. That and the tutoring I get at my uni make me think that quantitatively I actually learn a lot more at uni than I otherwise would, although it’s true of course that I could direct my time to learn a lower quantity but more relevant content.
This is not argument for education per se, but at the current point I’d be quite concerned about EA curricula being too one-sided if that’s the only education you get. (It depends on the field and execution of course and I might be wrong)
I expect the benefits are probably greater for certain graduate studies where you have more contact to mentors but I’m not sure about this.
Admittedly, all of these reasons mainly apply to my second degree. I’m a lot more willing to relent that my first degree was mostly a waste of time, although I’m still often surprised by how much stuff I learned was actually useful (mostly stats). I also think the case is much different if you’re not interested in research, or interested in e.g. ML engineering.
My tutor pushed back and improved my thinking a lot and in a way that I frankly don’t expect most of the people in my EA circle to do. I hope this also helps me evaluate the quality of discussion and arguments in EA a bit although I’m not sure if that’s a real effect.
If you have a moment, I’d be very interested to understand what exactly this tutor did right and how. Maybe others (like me) can emulate what they did! :-D
Hm, I’m not sure how easily it’s reproducible/what exactly he did. I had to write essays on the topic every week and he absolutely destroyed my first essays. I think reading their essay is an exceptionally good way to find out how much the person in question misunderstands and I’m not sure how easily you can recreate this in conversation.
I guess the other thing was a combination of deep subject-matter expertise + [being very good at normal good things EAs would also do] + a willingness to assume that when I said something that didn’t seem to make sense, it indeed didn’t make sense, and telling me so/giving me all the possible objections to my argument; and then just feeling comfortable talking for 20 minutes (basically lecturing). I think that worked because of the formal tutor-student setting we were in and because he evidently and very obviously knew a lot more about the topic than me. I think it’s harder in natural settings to realize that that’s the case and confidently act on it.
What I mean by [normal good things EAs would also do]: Listening to my confused talking, paraphrasing what I was trying to say into the best steelman, making sure that that’s what I meant before pointing out all the flaws.
Interesting, thank you! Assuming there are enough people who can do the “normal good things EAs would also do,” that leaves the problem that it’ll be expensive for enough people with the necessary difference in subject-matter expertise to devote time to tutoring.
I’m imagining a hierarchical system where the absolute experts on some topic (such as agent foundations or s-risks) set some time aside to tutor carefully junior researchers at their institute; those junior researchers tutor somewhat carefully selected amateur enthusiasts; and the the amateur enthusiasts tutor people who’ve signed up for (self-selected into) a local reading club on the topic. These tutors may need to be paid for this work to be able to invest the necessary time.
This is difficult if the field of research is new because then (1) there may be only a small number of experts with very little time to spare and no one else who comes close in expertise or (2) there may be not yet enough knowledge in the area to sustain three layers of tutors while still having a difference in expertise that allows for this mode of tutoring socially.
But whenever problem 2 occurs, the hierarchical scheme is just unnecessary. So only problem 1 in isolation remains unsolved.
Do you think that could work? Maybe this is something that’d be interesting for charity entrepreneurs to solve. :-)
What would also be interesting: (1) How much time do these tutors devote to each student per week? (2) Does one have to have exceptional didactic skills to become tutor or are these people only selected for their subject-matter expertise? (3) Was this particular tutor exceptional or are they all so good?
Maybe my whole idea is unrealistic because too few people could combine subject-matter expertise with didactic skill. Especially the skill of understanding a different, incomplete or inconsistent world model and then providing just the information that the person needs to improve it seems unusual.
A key claim in this post seems to be that the vast majority if not all EAs see higher education as broken and that they only go to signal their ability. Is there sufficient evidence for this claim? Maybe the claim is true, but the only evidence you provide is anecdotal and based on a single meet up.
Is it possible, even if that claim is true, that a minority of people really benefit from the higher education system and have a great impact on the world through it? Perhaps top academics? I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question, but I think it’s another important one to ask. If the answer is “yes” then perhaps the existence of the current higher education system is justified, but in a smaller form.
Thanks for writing this :) I certainly agree that the education system isn’t optimal and maybe only useful to a handful of people. However, I’d like to provide myself as a data point of someone who actually thinks they benefit from their education. I’m worried that people might sometimes come away with the feeling that they’re doing something wrong and pointless when going to uni/only doing signalling when that’s not true in some cases.
I’m a bit of an outlier in that I’m actually in my second bachelor’s degree and I definitely don’t want to claim that that’s a good idea for everyone. The first one was from a not well known University and my current degree is at a prestigious university. After my first year at my current university I was offered a job at an EA organization and after a lot of deliberation turned it down. I’m not sure that was the right choice but I still think I got a lot of benefits from continuing my degree. Here are some examples for why:
I learned a lot about writing. I got a ton of practice and feedback (both 1-2x a week). I don’t think this would have been possible otherwise.
Last term, I took a course in Philosophy of Cognitive Science: There’s a good chance I would have wanted to spend some time on the same topics in my free time for EA-ish reasons. My tutor pushed back and improved my thinking a lot and in a way that I frankly don’t expect most of the people in my EA circle to do. I hope this also helps me evaluate the quality of discussion and arguments in EA a bit although I’m not sure if that’s a real effect.
I often see the argument advanced that you could just learn much more effectively in your free time. I’m slowly arriving at a point at which I think I would probably continue learning and working on my own. However, when I started studying that was certainly not the case. It’s really hard to self study (for many). I think many and probably the majority of people really benefit from the structure that forces you to do something. That and the tutoring I get at my uni make me think that quantitatively I actually learn a lot more at uni than I otherwise would, although it’s true of course that I could direct my time to learn a lower quantity but more relevant content.
This is not argument for education per se, but at the current point I’d be quite concerned about EA curricula being too one-sided if that’s the only education you get. (It depends on the field and execution of course and I might be wrong)
I expect the benefits are probably greater for certain graduate studies where you have more contact to mentors but I’m not sure about this.
Admittedly, all of these reasons mainly apply to my second degree. I’m a lot more willing to relent that my first degree was mostly a waste of time, although I’m still often surprised by how much stuff I learned was actually useful (mostly stats). I also think the case is much different if you’re not interested in research, or interested in e.g. ML engineering.
Hi Chi! I keep thinking about this:
If you have a moment, I’d be very interested to understand what exactly this tutor did right and how. Maybe others (like me) can emulate what they did! :-D
Hm, I’m not sure how easily it’s reproducible/what exactly he did. I had to write essays on the topic every week and he absolutely destroyed my first essays. I think reading their essay is an exceptionally good way to find out how much the person in question misunderstands and I’m not sure how easily you can recreate this in conversation.
I guess the other thing was a combination of deep subject-matter expertise + [being very good at normal good things EAs would also do] + a willingness to assume that when I said something that didn’t seem to make sense, it indeed didn’t make sense, and telling me so/giving me all the possible objections to my argument; and then just feeling comfortable talking for 20 minutes (basically lecturing). I think that worked because of the formal tutor-student setting we were in and because he evidently and very obviously knew a lot more about the topic than me. I think it’s harder in natural settings to realize that that’s the case and confidently act on it.
What I mean by [normal good things EAs would also do]: Listening to my confused talking, paraphrasing what I was trying to say into the best steelman, making sure that that’s what I meant before pointing out all the flaws.
Interesting, thank you! Assuming there are enough people who can do the “normal good things EAs would also do,” that leaves the problem that it’ll be expensive for enough people with the necessary difference in subject-matter expertise to devote time to tutoring.
I’m imagining a hierarchical system where the absolute experts on some topic (such as agent foundations or s-risks) set some time aside to tutor carefully junior researchers at their institute; those junior researchers tutor somewhat carefully selected amateur enthusiasts; and the the amateur enthusiasts tutor people who’ve signed up for (self-selected into) a local reading club on the topic. These tutors may need to be paid for this work to be able to invest the necessary time.
This is difficult if the field of research is new because then (1) there may be only a small number of experts with very little time to spare and no one else who comes close in expertise or (2) there may be not yet enough knowledge in the area to sustain three layers of tutors while still having a difference in expertise that allows for this mode of tutoring socially.
But whenever problem 2 occurs, the hierarchical scheme is just unnecessary. So only problem 1 in isolation remains unsolved.
Do you think that could work? Maybe this is something that’d be interesting for charity entrepreneurs to solve. :-)
What would also be interesting: (1) How much time do these tutors devote to each student per week? (2) Does one have to have exceptional didactic skills to become tutor or are these people only selected for their subject-matter expertise? (3) Was this particular tutor exceptional or are they all so good?
Maybe my whole idea is unrealistic because too few people could combine subject-matter expertise with didactic skill. Especially the skill of understanding a different, incomplete or inconsistent world model and then providing just the information that the person needs to improve it seems unusual.