Why? To me it seems simple supply & demand problem. Access to fire-hose is not so expensive. Hardware is dirt cheap, code is not complex either so you can go with relatively cheap junior developer for such problem. Also it takes only a little of manager's time.
It would be completely different matter if we were talking about finding patters, predicting trends, etc.
This is just a purely academic response to your question, but if you took me straight out of high school, and just dropped me into an apprenticeship-type situation in any medical field, I'm pretty confident I could come out just as competent had I gone through the classical college->residency gauntlet, and probably in a shorter amount of time. This of course assumes I have a minimum level of intelligence/work-ethic, a passion for medicine, and there were enough willing doctors going around to fulfill the demand for apprenticeships, but I think it's thusly theoretically possible to do away with college, although it would never happen.
US medical education is provably inefficient. You can take a sufficiently intelligent 17 year old and give them a top notch medical education in five years. In Ireland and the UK Medicine is an undergraduate degree and takes five or six years depending on the university. If you got rid of summers off you could do it very comfortably in four. Making medicine a second entry degree is a giant waste of social resources.
Wait, I thought the college was irrelevant? Why can't the brilliant 17 year old just read blog posts or whatever people who propose these positions think?
Anyway, I'm going to address a different issue. ... You really think you take a 17 year old straight out of high school level education and in four years they are a medical doctor? That's interesting ...
As much as someone just out of med school, yes. At an absolute bare minimum you still need to do your internship for a year before you can practice.
On your first point; most people don't use most of what they learn in college once they leave it. This is substantially less true of medicine than many other fields. At the same time most doctors do a pretty thorough job of forgetting math and physics and a reasonable job of forgetting chemistry.
Yeah because the majority of college students are going to study medicine.
When people talk about the "end" of higher education they mean an end to the thousands of psychology, communications, liberal arts type degrees. We will still have universities and phd's but not kids taking on thousands in debt so universities can build massive new building and sports arenas.
I don't think there is a better and we need to stop thinking in such polarized ways. People are different. Some people excel with formal direction, other excel on their own, and some people excel with all kinds of combinations in between.
Maybe my undergraduate institution failed mebut I don't feel that having taken linear algebra, multivariable calc, applied stats, and graduate probability over the summer that the PDF below contains readily accessible information to me. Does it require graduate linear algebra? Graduate multi-v? We're my courses not rigorous enough? Am just not smart enough? I graduated summa cum laude, so maybe I should be okay.
All I am saying that is that there seems to be a huge leap between having taken the prerequisites everyone says you should take and then seeing Cramer-Rao bounds on page 70.
Better than anything I could draw. Here was one of the most re known physicists/smartest guys around saying...hey, I'm not really an artist but I'd love to give it a shot.
Kind of makes you wonder if that same line of the thought led to his scientific successes.
Unbridled curiosity. I highly recommend the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" - it's very good and insightful into how he approaches situations and how his thinking style shapes him and eventually his surroundings.
It should be noted that "What Do You Care ..." is comparatively more serious than "Sure You're Joking ...". Two of the longest sections involve the death of his wife during Feynman's days at Los Alamos, and the investigation of the Challenger crash.
can you please show me a repository of R graphs that look half as polished/nice as graphs made in d3? I am not challenging or being confrontational I am actually curious why you think ggplot2 produces great vizes. I am new to data visualization, but I've worked in bit in R before and understand it's power to handle large data sets. Do you mean that they are great as in they are very functional for producing basic static charts like in Tableau? Or dynamic/creative vizes too?
In my line of work, clients are more concerned about "out-vizzing" the competition by creating mind-blowing "Wow!" vizes. Doesn't this rule ggplot2 out for the most part?
ggplot & R aren't really for "out-vizzing" anyone.
While d3 is a great tool for analysis as well, it's more for presentation than exploration, I think.
R and ggplot2 are for exploration & analysis, with the added benefit that ggplot2 makes wonderful plots fit for publication. They're quite beautiful, and well done, but not creating interactive, shiny visualizations.
To anyone that read this and identified strongly: I highly recommend you pick up 'The War of Art' and 'Turning Pro' by Steven Pressfield.
Essentially,accordingly to Pressfield, those writers who identify strongly with problems the writer has in the article would do well to adopt a "hard hat" mentality of doing creative work; grab your lunch pale, sit in front of the computer and suffer, and don't worry about whether what you write is good or not-just do the damn work. 'Pretend' that you only write for money (you don't, but money is nice).
The problem for me and I think for the writer is identifying one's ego and with one's work. You start to worry you're not cut out, good enough, etc. But when you start thinking of creative endeavors like grabbing your lunch pail and heading off to the construction cite to put in a hard day's work, everything changes. It's kinda zen like in that way. Success or failure-the construction worker doesn't take it personally-he still has a beer at the end of the day and laughs with his family.
The trick is to get them when they're on academic probation. My school had the "4 horsemen of the math department" and overall their GPA averages tended to be in the "square root club" (sqrt of the GPA is higher than the actual GPA). However, when they were on academic probation it was all A's and B's.
Through a combination of dropped classes, complaints, and bad course surveys, the school eventually picked up that these guys were horrible.
If it's a government college loan, the interest rate is like 5%, and mutual funds are giving more than that right now...so technicallly speaking...I don't know how quick I'd say that
Did you even try to research this yourself? There are many mutual funds that have 20%+ YTD. It's typically recommended to invest before paying off debt like student loans/mortgages because you're likely to make more investing than what you'd save on interest.
You're talking about historical returns of 20% which have little bearing on future returns. (This is finance 101 stuff, let me know if you need a link that explains it to you)
Paying off a 5% interest debt gives a guaranteed return.
Sounds like you're the perfect candidate for the next Bernie Madoff... he guaranteed future returns of >10% on his mutual funds :-)
That said, a (heavily conditioned) case can be made for investing before paying off loans, as I did in my original comment for this thread.)
