41 pointsby EA-31672 days ago4 comments
  • tkgally8 hours ago
    It's a good article, but I kept waiting for a suggestion that never arrived: that perhaps individualized tutoring can be provided effectively by interactive AI.

    I don't know how well ChatGPT et al. would work if applied at scale as part of a mastery-based curriculum. I especially wonder if students would be as motivated to learn by chatbots as they are by human interaction. But considering the low cost and ready availability of LLM tutors, it's at least a possibility worth considering.

  • rahimnathwani21 hours ago

      Mastery learning and one-on-one learning aren’t cost-efficient at scale.
    
    For the same price as 'out of state' tuition at UC Berkeley, you could hire a $100/hour tutor for 1:1 sessions, 8 hours a week.
    • musicale19 hours ago
      > For the same price as 'out of state' tuition at UC Berkeley, you could hire a $100/hour tutor for 1:1 sessions, 8 hours a week.

      Out-of-state fees raise tuition from $17K to $51K, but $17K is still a lot of money (and overall costs add up to about $51K a year even for in-state students.)

      Besides expensive $100/hour tutors - Berkeley could (as many schools do) hire cheap undergrads from the previous cohort.

      It also seems to me that the basic idea of mastery could be implemented with self-paced learning and individualized assessment, which could potentially be batched based on milestones.

      • rahimnathwani18 hours ago

          which could potentially be batched based on milestones
        
        This is a form of 'ability grouping'. Many people in California don't like ability grouping, for ideological reasons, even though it works.
        • UltraSane11 hours ago
          You cannot effectively teach children UNLESS you do ability grouping. The gap just becomes too large. You can't teach one child calculus while another in the same math class can't multiply.
          • 7 hours ago
            undefined
    • BobaFloutist21 hours ago
      Yeah but you wouldn't get access to active research projects, equipment (including lab equipment and super-computers), and various other programs. The point of universities has always been network effects, not the quality of pedagogy of individual professors.

      Universities also usually have free tutoring centers. So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff.

      Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload.

      • rahimnathwani20 hours ago

          Also 8 hours a week would be an absurdly low courseload.
        
        I'm not talking about 8 hours per week of studying. I'm talking about 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring. Those 8 hours would be used to improve the effectiveness of the other 32 to 40 hours the student spends studying.

        At Oxford, undergraduates in humanities and social sciences get 2 hours per week of lectures, and 2 hours per week of 1:1 or 2:1 tutorials. That's half the 8 hours I'm suggesting (and even less when you consider that Oxford has only 24 weeks of term per year). Do you think those students are taking an 'absurdly low courseload'?

          So, for the cost of tuition, you get access to (often more than) 8 hours of tutoring a week in addition to all the other stuff.
        
        At which US university does every student get an average of 8 hours per week of 1:1 tutoring?
      • blackeyeblitzar9 hours ago
        Those facilities are incredibly overrated. Most universities have outdated labs not state of the art stuff. And certainly they aren’t in line with the cost. Berkeley doesn’t even have supercomputers.
  • ggm2 days ago
    Cost. Those tutors don't come cheap. Moving from university for a tested elite to general access altered the money component and now, we achieve a lower peak for more people.

    I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one, and seminars with 10 of us. How little we knew of what was to come.

    • rahimnathwani21 hours ago

        I was at the tail end of elitist education in the UK (79-82) and we complained about tutorials being two students at a time instead of one on one
      
      When I did my undergrad, tutorials were usually 2:1, except during the first year. It sounds expensive, but consider:

      - we were only studying two courses at a time, so we only had two tutorials per week

      - there were only 8 weeks per term, so 24 weeks per year

      - 2 x 24 is 48

      - let's say the tutor needs to be paid $100 for the session and $100 for skimming the essays beforehand; that's $100 per student

      - 48 x $100 is less than $5k

      - in the US, even state schools charge much more than $5k per year

    • EA-31672 days ago
      Very much so, part of it is undoubtedly the result of changing social norms, politics, and a broadening middle class... part of it is an increased population and changing economics from globalization and other factors.
      • ggm2 days ago
        I will say as a very average product during elitist times I do not personally have a problem with more average uplift than just a spike of brilliance. I suspect I am swimming against the "10x" zeitgeist here but I'm unconvinced geniuses at scale do a much as people want to think.

        That said, I love being the dumbest person in a room.

        • EA-31672 days ago
          Without in any way trying to draw the collective wrath, I think it's worth saying that being "10x" isn't really brilliance, it's just high productivity. This is doubly true when the work being done is not exactly groundbreaking.

          Still putting aside the world of tech, we definitely benefit from the existence of geniuses in a way that enhances the lives and careers of vast numbers of people. Ideally we'd make room in education for everyone from special needs up to especially gifted, but as you say... money.

  • downbootsa day ago
    But the fast food drive through model sells and scales better than worrying about nutrition