Or like Europe. You don't pay tuition, but if you slack off, and don't progress properly, you only have a limited number of exam retries and limited number of funded semesters. If you fail, you're out, choose another profession. You're not a customer, you're someone who is trying to prove themselves and get certified by experts on their knowledge. The "customer" of the university is whoever will glance at the degree paper and tries to ascertain the skill/knowledge level of the outgoing student. They have to give a good signal there. The reason this doesn't work in the US, is because they want mediocre children of rich parents to be pushed through, because college is a networking and social class-based finishing school, not a place for acquiring knowledge.

(Also, there should be electives, but the rigorous backbone of a degree should be mandatory, so "students won't choose this course" doesn't come up.)

Tenure protects professors against students' complaints (often for the better, sometimes for the worse). Also, the administration already knows that students complain about professors who are tough, and don't typically pay heed to those complaints. Parents don't really have recourse either: what are they going to do, send their kid to Podunk State instead?

It's not a metaphor. They are literally the customer.

> It’s much harder to write well without practicing

Is the point of writing, to communicate information from one person to another group or something else?

Which of these fail to communicate the need:

i. "Need to go poo poo! NOW!"

ii. "Excuse me Sir. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, I didn't mean to intrude but could you, please, point me to the direction of the nearest latrines, or the head as some might say, so I can relieve myself. The burrito didn't sit well with me unfortunately and it's causing me much distress! I must stress, time is of the utmost essence!"

> So yes, you still need to have the students do the thing.

I don't disagree with "There is no replacement for actually doing the work".

What I do disagree with is the exact nature of the work done: when you have access to a gas/electric driven auger, trying to dig a hole by hand with a teaspoon is neither smart nor productive, like learning how to do long division.

> The knowledge would also be fleeting because actually doing the thing makes the knowledge stick more than just observing and understanding the thing

Define "stick".

1. I recall, in school, sitting in classes for days where the teacher went over multiplication tables 5x5 through 99x99. It was painful. I don't recall the top off my head what 93x95 is but I know how to calculate it now and I knew how to calculate it then. Hearing and doing 93x95 on a balckboard was not specially valuable nor additionally insightful nor marginally instructive over 13x19 and we could easily have stopped there and done something else with the remaining time.

2. I also recall, sitting in classes where we did long division by hand. You had to show your work and it was incredibly exhausting. I taught myself special tricks just to finish the long division exercises quickly and just be done with it so I could actually do the things that interested me more like reading manuals about vacuum tubes and how triodes worked.

3. Then there was this phase of "unitary method" which was just batshit crazy. They would ask questions like "if it takes 1 person to cut 1 block of wood 10 hours, how long would it take 10 men to cut the same wood?", and you would have to follow this insane mechanical process of decomposing the problem into its constituents and do all this crazy, laborious steps to arrive at the answer. It made absolutely no sense to me then and it still doesn't. It felt like digging a trench with a teaspoon. I had taught myself symbolic manipulation by then and used the "X, Y, Z" method to rapidly solve the problem. I recall annoying the teacher with "if it takes 1 person 10 days to cross a river, how long would it take 10 people to cross the same river?"

So back to my question - define "stick". What's the window of "stickiness"? Who defines that window and why?

Next:

4. Has long division been sticky for me (I don't recall it at all but I do remember I scored very well on those exercises then because the alternatives would leave me with even less time to do the things I actually liked doing like building mechanical robots)?

5. Exactly how many exercises were necessary and sufficient to prove that I understood long division? 1 page of long division? 5 pages? 100?

6. Do you recall how to do long division? I don't. I can bet you that I can look it up and do it correctly but I won't out of principle: There's absolutely 0 value in knowing how to do long division. It was as useful to me back then as it is now. We should have done something more productive with our time.

"But doing long division laid the very foundation of logic and mathematical ability!" - Nonsense. There were students in my class who excelled at long division but couldn't grok calculus no matter how hard they tried. The only thing that being able to do long division proves is that you can pay attention long enough and maintain state. There are far more exciting, interesting ways of proving that ability.

If I need to learn long division, I always had the ability to look it up, do some exercises, verify I understand it correctly and complete the task I was relying on long division for. Before the age of LLMs, one might argue that I needed to have some idea that long division was the tool I needed for solving my problem, and thus, having learned long division was valuable. In 2026, I can tell my desired state to a frontier model and it will propose various ways to solve it, then solve it for me if I so desire and walk me through the solution step-by-step if I want it to.

So no, long division, "unitary method" and all such matters were and are nonsense, a waste of time and we should replace them with something more meaningful. If we can't come up with that, we should atleast let the kids go outside and play games they like.

So again - what's this worry about knowledge being fleeting? Do either you, I or my teacher who taught me long division care whether I posses the knowledge of long division in 2026?

Even though I knew long division in 1997, mastered it, excelled at it back then, do I still know it now?

Does my inability to explain long division at a moment's notice in 2026 imply long division hasn't been "sticky"?

If I never, ever knew long division at all, can I correctly learn it now?

Who defines what knowledge is worth fleeting and which one is not? My history teacher and chemistry teacher certainly disagreed on that matter in 1997 and still do!

The only truce they were willing to sign is that history and chemistry are both equally important but given that I am a software engineer by trade and deploying high quality systems to production is how I support my lifestyle, I provably disagree with both of them.

I honestly don't understand what we're discussing/debating? It feels like you think I'm countering your postition but I'm not.

I'm tired of people echoing a common trope that somehow LLMs replace critical thinking or steal learning opportunities from students - they do the opposite. They provide students more opportunities to sharpen their critical thinking and democratize learning.

In your parent post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49225068), you asserted that "These are all useful skills, even in a post-LLM world.": I agreed with you, and proposed that you could use an LLM to debate you and furthur hone that skill because you certainly don't have unlimited time with a skilled human teacher but for $20/mo, you could debate a frontier model as long as you're awake, all day long.

Your research seems to be supporting what I just said, does it not?

> Indeed, LLMs can be helpful as an alternative to a teacher, if thought of as a sophist (I have even done research on this [0]). But that is not the approach you are proposing.

What according to you, did I propose instead?

I also need further clarification on the term "sophist", because in the US and the UK, it means a person who is "misusing" logic and attempting to deceive their opponents using trickery instead of an honest debate that centers around the objective truth. Their sole objective is to "win" a debate rather than appreciate debate itself or the merits of the topic itself. I believe, even in ancient history, Plato heavily criticized them.

For example: If we were debating whether child labor is wrong, a sophist who was put in a position "for" the topic would then argue there are good reasons why child labor is good. A "true" debator would concede that they could not support child labor and would not debate for the topic.

Is that what you meant by the term "sophist"? Or does "sophist" mean a "Debate Coach" or "Instructor of Rhetoric" or "teacher who excels in the art of debating"? If you meant "Debate Coach" but it sounds too simplistic, may I propose we use "Forensics Instructor" - because the term "sophist" in modern English certainly doesn't communicate that and its use will lead to confusion.

> then LLMs doing the hard work of identifying the gaps in their logic is counter-intuitive

Your use of the phrase "counter-intuitive" is unclear to me. Do you mean to say that:

1. it's actually a good idea that can certainly provide great outcomes but doesn't occur to a lot of people, or

2. that it's not a good idea at all because it just doesn't work?

3. something else?

I heard your points - you communicated them very well. I failed to communicate that the first, while true, isn't going to matter in a few years time and the second is not true.

I will repeat what I said - if an employer arbitrarily restricts their talent pool to legacy credentials, they are optimizing for signaling rather than raw productivity.

By 2026, there is overwhelming anecdote and evidence that credentials and where you went to school have very little to do with demonstrated performance. (See citations 1-3)

Hence, it's mostly theatrics.

It seems like you're arguing that it's safer to attend prestigious schools because that increases your chances of being employed. I argue that in the age of LLMs, where the cost of learning is very low and speed of building prototypes (and hence learning and improvement) is rapid, it's easier than ever to start your own business.

> First, employers favor applicants from prestigious schools over those from less prestigious schools, because prestigious schools are more selective. That seems to be at least as true in the US as in Finland

This represents a trailing-indicator mindset typical of "MNC".

Yes, legacy corporations still filter by prestige because they want to signal to others they hire only the best, but that's because in extremely large orgs like theirs, it's impossible for a single person's contributions (outside the C-Suite) to have an outsized effect on that org, so they resort to proxy metrics, like credentails, for signalling.

In real life though, credentials have an extremely weak correlation with impact (see citations).

What this translates for an end user, is that the end user doesn't care about the credentials of the person who built the product. I explain that below.

On the frontiers of excellence - startup founders will tell you that hiring people from prestigious schools is a liability over those who might only have a high school degree because the prestigious school graduate is entitled and is looking to build a resume so they can jump ship in 2 years instead of the barely high school degree student who's hungry to prove they are worth investing in.

The selectivity of prestigious schools is gamed heavily in the U.S where you have literally floors of "prep schools" full of trainers telling you which piano lessons to take, which tennis tournaments to play at, which charities to volunteer for and which SAT question types to learn well. Getting into Harvard is less about ability and more about checking off boxes on a checklist.

Notice that absolutely none of this actually has to do with what the student actually wants to do in life and everything to do with impressing the gatekeepers to admissions.

However, make no mistake, the end customer rarely cares about the credentials.

When you watch Netflix or play the XBox, I bet you don't look up the credentials of the production team or the engineers who built it - you enjoy the content and vote with your dollars - and that's real life.

HN is full of people who don't have anything past a high-school degree but they were obsessed with solving one problem well and now they are multi-millionaires and billionaires because they ended up having an outsized impact. There are far more in that bucket who are comfortable but not multi-millionaires (so you never hear about them).

The money is not the end result but proof of impact and this proves my point.

Let's even discard that, citing survivorship bias. Let's reduce my argument to one fact: engineering/code doesn't care about the author's pedigree - all that matters is whether the system compiles, works correctly and scales under load and a prestigious university certainly doesn't have exclusive rights to those skills.

> theoretical education only makes sense in higher-tier institutions, where the prestige can offset the initial disadvantage

That doesn't make any sense. An institution will hire as per their needs: higher-tier, lower-tier, mid-tier all have their unique needs.

The reason why higher-tier institutions can afford to hire advanced degree graduates is because lower-tier, mid-tier simply cannot afford that baggage: highly credentialed individuals often won't work on tasks they consider "beneath them", the actual "plumbing" of engineering, which makes them useless to lean, high-velocity teams - which is precisely the point the founders at start ups make.

I think you're conflating multiple issues together altough you're not alone in the population that strongly advocates for education as a proxy for ability. They have nothing to do with each other and have a lose correlation.

Here's a thought experiment:

- Kid A (Rural Finland): Has internet access, a Claude Code subscription, and a singular obsession. They spend their time learning how to write a provably correct, memory-safe OS kernel. Through sheer, unhindered iteration and thousands of failures, they master thread management, hardware concurrency, durable scheduling, and modern CPU architecture.

- Kid B (New York City): Attends a prestigious prep school. Their entire mental bandwidth is consumed by a generalized conveyor belt: memorizing 100 years of Eupropean and U.S. history, computing the molality of an acid drop, identifying stereocenters in organic chemistry, and writing essays on what Socrates said to Glaucon. They barely touch operating systems because there is no time left after juggling DBMS trivia, analog design, and quantum physics to satisfy a rubric.

Which person would you listen to or hire when it comes to building an OS?

Now your argument might then pivot to "but what if instead of building an OS, I wanted someone to do algoritmic trading on Wall Street? Ha! I got you there! Kid A knows nothing about that, they only know how to write a kernel!"

Kid A doesn't care. Their singular obsession is OSes and they are world class at it. Their brains aren't clouded by molality and stereocenters - an OS kernel certainly doesn't care about them. If in the future, we had a CPU that worked off organic chemistry, maybe he will learn about it or maybe not and there will be Kid C in the unlikely case Kid A failed to build a trading engine from scratch, fail 1000 times, and learn the math on the fly just like they did for the kernel.

---

[1] Google's Internal Data (Laszlo Bock): In 2013, Google's SVP of People Operations publicly revealed that GPAs, test scores, and university prestige had zero correlation with employee success. They explicitly began hiring more candidates with no college degrees because work-sample tests were far better predictors of impact.

[2] The Dale & Krueger Study (NBER): A famous National Bureau of Economic Research study found that students who were accepted to Ivy League schools but chose to attend less prestigious state schools earned just as much money later in life. It proved that the ambition of the student drives success, not the prestige of the institution.

[3] The Schmidt & Hunter Meta-Analysis: The gold standard in industrial psychology (examining 85 years of hiring data) found that "years of education" has a dismal 0.10 correlation with job performance, whereas "work sample tests" and "cognitive ability" are highly predictive.