### College and Technical Maturity

[TODO: This isn't very clear.]When living in the Bay Area and seeing what people need to know to build interesting things in various fields, I started to believe that most of what you learn in college is (for most people) useless, and that if you purely optimizing for vocational expertise you're better off taking the foundational courses in your field and then leaving school. My attitude on this has shifted slightly. I maintain that the above stance is, as stated, probably accurate, but I also now appreciate where this thesis is incomplete.

*Where I Was Wrong*

The initial premise of my argument was that learning new material is only useful insofar as it does one or more of these things.

- Stretches your cognitive limits (eg. Galois theory)
- Teaches you material you will directly use in the future (eg. intro CS)
- Is fascinating enough that you would regret not studying it (eg. Quantum Mechanics)

*Technical Maturity, Defined*

This means understanding the foundational modes of thought of the field well enough that you
could easily teach yourself adjacent material in the field. The "in a specific field" caveat
is important because it *do not* think that taking a hard graduate course on, say,
randomized algorithms will improve your ability to learn financial economics or solid-state
chemistry by making you "generally smarter." I think humans are too bad at applying knowledge
across domains (even related ones) for that to happen. Instead, what I mean is that taking a grad
course on randomized algorithms *will * help you learn computational complexity theory,
algorithmic game theory, and probability theory. In other words, fields that have substantial overlap
in content/keywords, and not just "modes of thinking." I elaborate on this, analogizing it with graph theory
and giving examples, below.

*Knowledge as Graph Theory*

To understand what I mean by "technical maturity," think of knowledge as comprised of nodes in a graph. Each tid-bit of knowledge constitutes a node, and the connections between them are the edges. For example, a class about line and surface integrals over vector fields would create a new node on the graph, linking it to, say, electromagnetism from one's physics class, which are prime examples of line integrals that have physical meaning. That would be an edge between the two nodes.

Why is this relevant? The contention that many champions of the liberal arts have is that studying challenging topics in broad
contexts makes one "generally smarter" and improve one's "ability to learn," in generality. This is NOT what I mean by technical maturity.
This claim of theirs, in the context of our knowledge graph, is claiming that a node about commutative groups from abstract algebra, or
the portrayal of feminism in Austen's *Pride and Prejudice* has edges
going to things that people do on their jobs; say, writing code or hiring employees. I think there is a wealth of evidence supporting the
fact that humans are very poor at transferring knowledge across domains, even closely related ones. Therefore, this "liberal arts as building critical thinking skills" school of thought,
I see as pretty much baloney.

But they're on to something. Instead, I claim, knowing about, say, commutative groups is useful for
learning molecular representations in chemistry (think of these topics as knowledge nodes, I'm claiming most people would be able to connect the two). Indeed, it's quite different from abstract algebra,
but has clear and direct applications of group theory and so is *similar enough* for meaningful transfer to happen.
In other words, not as different to abstract algebra as, say, doing corporate taxes in Excel. Just different enough.
Similarly, knowing about the portrayal of feminism in Austen (again, think of this as a node) really could
concievably be directly useful when studying the Suffragete movement because, again, they're different yet similar * enough*.

Therefore what I mean for technical maturity is comfort around a set of keywords. In abstract algebra, one keyword might be "symmetric structure" and in feminist studies one might be "intersectional theory." Having heard these words in other contexts -- even very different ones -- adds value and builds "technical maturity." However, groups and feminist theory is too far from writing code or drafting speeches to reasonably possibly have any keyword overlap.

*A Concrete Example*

In the fall of my freshman year, I took my first rigorous math class. It studied linear algebra from an abstract perspective. One of the things we learned about were unitary operators, which are linear transformations that preserve inner product structure. During the winter break after that semester, I perused a textbook on quantum computation. And in quantum computing, the unit of logic/computation is the idea of a quantum gate, itself a linear transformtion that takes some input and maps it to some output. Being a linear transformation, we represent such logic gates as matrices, and they operate on vector inputs.

One thing that the author of the textbook really emphasized and spent a good amount of time explaining was why we used
unitary operators for our logic gates. Evidently, he thought most people reading the book would find that unmotivated. But because I was lucky to take a relatively abstract linear
algebra course * and had taken a class on probability * beforehand, it didn't need any explanation: unitary operators preserve inner products, and random variables are vectors.
If you want to ensure the probabilities in the vectors coming in AND leaving the linear transformation (quantum logic gate),
using a unitary operator is the obvious choice, since they preserve the inner product (sum of probabilities) of their input. This is the key point: taking the class on abstract linear algebra
and one on probability firmly planted nodes (unitary operators, random variables as vectors), and the new topic I was learning (quantum logic gates) had * enough keywords in common that I could
reasonably create new edges between these knowledge nodes, on the fly.* This is the crux of technical maturity: increasing your threshold for what is "obvious".

*What Might This Look Like In Practise?*

If you see college mostly as I do -- a 4-year course on "learning to think like an X" for many different X (mathematician, programmer, physicist, economist, statistician, historian, psychologist), you should optimize for taking difficult, foundational courses in many fields. It's important to emphasize that by "foundational" I don't mean introductory. For example, I do not think taking an introductory CS course or two suffices to "learn to think like a computer scientist." Instead, take intermediate/advanced courses in algorithm design and operating systems to get those gains.

At Harvard, you need to take 12-16 courses in a field and 32 courses overall to graduate with
a degree in that field. What if, instead, you took
the most central ~6 in a several related fields? In math, perhaps that includes
group theory, rings and fields; real, complex, and functional analysis, algebraic and differential topology. In physics
perhaps classical and quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and thermodynamics?
In economics, maybe the intermediate micro/macro sequence
alongside game theory, behavioral economics, political economy. In CS,
algorithms and operating systems, programming paradigms, complexity theory and
compilers. You'd get 80% of the value of 3-4 different undergraduate degrees, and more importantly be equipped to at least understand parts
of the research frontier in each field. Teaching yourself would become much easier, and you wouldn't really be an outsider to any of the fields.
They emphasis here is on seeing college as the *starting point* for life-long learning, and not the *terminal stage* in education.

The obvious caveat here is if you're set on spending your life exploring and deepening a specific field. If you want to be a mathematical physicist, ignore my advice. Go ahead and take quantum field theory and Lie algebra at the expense of understanding how economists or computer scientists think. That is the price you pay for mastery. And that's fine. But most people are not quite as pointed in their goals, and so my thoughts are probably more relevant for them (and myself).

To summarize, I think that building technical maturity in multiple fields equips you with the ability to learn new things *in those
specific fields* (unlike the claims of the pure-liberal-arts charlatans, who claim it builds critical thinking in general). And this manifests itself as
deep comfort in novel sitatuations (again, in the fields you've cultivated maturity in only) which leads to very fast learning and growth of knowledge graphs.
Ultimately, the point of college is to set down as many nodes as you can in as many diverse fields, constrainted by the fact that you want node density within any specific field
(ie. part of your knowledge graph) to be high enough that they roughly approximate/sample the entire space so you can learn new things in new fields and slot them into the context
of existing knowledge.

This mostly explains the big difference I saw between technical college graduates and high-school dropouts in the Valley -- the college graduates felt comfortable in novel situations because they knew their graphs were wide and dense. The high-school dropouts mostly had no nodes to use as reference points from which to grow their graph, and so struggled to keep up with new material. Of course, this does not always hold; you can create these graphs outside of the academy and most people in the academy fail to do a good job at creating these graphs at all. But for me, school seems to work well for this, so I'm happy I'm here, for now.