Depth. Of Ed. Successfully killed a affordable repayment plan. Now, millions of people are experiencing stress, anxiety and fear related to monthly unaffordable payments.
If we can't maintain this system infrastructure, there is no point in anyone going to school if the reward for all the sacrifices we make means we give billions and billions of of tax paying money to corporations, banks and wars.
There’s a conversation happening right now about this shift that feels very familiar—and honestly, a little misplaced.
People are reacting like the Luddites did, as if the tool itself is the problem. It’s not. What’s actually being exposed is the structure we were already operating inside.
Academia, for example, is built on standardized formats: citations, essays, repeatable structures. That was designed for clarity and coordination. But it also means the system can be learned, optimized, and—yes—bypassed at the surface level.
The compression of knowledge and access didn’t create that. It just made it obvious.
You can now produce something that looks correct without guaranteeing that the understanding behind it is there. That’s not a failure—it’s a system optimizing for clear incentives, where output has been allowed to stand in for comprehension.
Same thing with creative work. Same thing with knowledge work in general.
So when people say “this is dangerous,” what they’re really reacting to is this:
The system can be played.
But here’s the part that gets missed—people have always played systems. School, jobs, incentives—all of it. The infrastructure just lowers the cost of doing it.
That doesn’t mean we roll things back or pretend the tool shouldn’t exist. That’s like arguing we should go back to horses because cars have externalities. No one actually believes that when it comes to anything else.
If there are environmental costs, labor shifts, or structural risks, those are regulation problems—not reasons to artificially limit individual use of a tool.
Blaming individuals for using available tools while large systems operate without constraint is backwards.
The real question isn’t “should people use the system?”
It’s:
What are we actually measuring, rewarding, and regulating—and does that still map to what we care about?
Because if understanding isn’t required for success, people will optimize around that.
They always have.
When I graduated in the 90s, we had to read a ton. Everything from Shakespeare and Beowulf to PRIDE AND PREJUDICE and THE SCARLET LETTER. It was 'mandatory.
I genuinely don't understand how you can graduate these days without having read a book cover-to-cover. So how is this happening? No shade; I'm just curious.
Reading wars may end as Congress backs Science of Reading https://share.google/HVVN0321xlIgDmrWX
With my hectic job, unpredictable work hours, and the challenge of raising teens and a toddler with autism, I’ve managed to keep up with my studies and earn my associate’s degree. As a UPS driver, I can’t always count on being home at a set time, so traditional schedules don’t work for me. Plus, the uncertain and volatile work environment at UPS made it clear that I needed to take action. The extra costs have been worth it so far at least with my pride, and I’ve been to a CC and WGU. Now whether I’ll be able to apply my degrees will be another set of challenges when that time comes.
