Tag: education

Math Teacher Can’t Math

Another evolutionary retard publicly demonstrates his retardery to the world. This time it’s a math teacher who would obviously fail every single word problem on a math test.

So I’d like to go into the math of Vox day and Will Duffy. Who am I? I am a math teacher. I am a math teacher in secondary education. Now if we take the reasoning of Will Duffy he says f max that’s the total number of genes fixated over a specific period the result that he gets is in the given time frame we could only have [sighs and gasps] 180 genes mutated and changed.

And what is the time period? That’s t div time that is given. That’s 6300,000 sorry 6,300,000 years of evolution divided by the length of a generation. That’s G len here. The length of a generation for humans is 25 years times 400 generations. So he says it takes 1,400 generations to fix one gene.

Okay. So if we make this calculation times one because D is substituted by one we reach the number 180. Devastating results says Will Duffy, we can only fix and mutate one gene 180 genes over a time period of six million years. If we were to follow this reasoning, it would mean it would mean what? For one gene to mutate and fixate. Sorry, it would have to take 25 * 1,400 is 35,000 years for one gene. And [snorts] the reasoning is you can only mutate and fixate another gene when this time period is over. So we have [snorts] 6 300,000 6,300,000 divided by 80. That would mean 35,000 years for one gene to mutate and fixate.

Now the reasoning is wrong. Why? It would mean that if you have the Marathon of New York with 60,000 participants and an average length of 4 hours per marathon. If you would follow this reasoning, it would take on average 240,000 hours for the marathon to end. That’s 10,000 days. And that means 27 years for all the participants to arrive. Of course, that’s not possible. they run parallel. Well, the same goes with mutation and fixation. So that math is clearly uh wrong.

This guy should be fired from his job immediately. He’s obviously incompetent. The math is not wrong because parallel fixation is clearly and specifically included in the calculation. So are sweeps. So is neutral substitution. So are hitchhikers. So is any and every evolutionary mechanism, with the exception of three minor ones.

First to address his idiotic analogy. What he is attempting to do is add up the cumulative time of all 60,000 runners, which is 240,000 hours, and then claim that it is identical to the amount of time it took to televise the marathon. Because the number that was provided is THE AVERAGE RATE PER FIXATION of all the bacteria in all the viable populations all the time. Once more, we see that an evolutionist doesn’t understand what an “average” is. The 1,400 generations per fixation number is analogically identical to the four hours per runner number.

If he simply looked at the LTEE papers, or the data, or my papers, he would know that is true. For example, in 60,000 generations, the Ara-6 population has 35 fixations. Not in serial. That’s the total number that took place in that population over the 60,000 generations. Which is a rate of 1,715 generations per fixation, which the keenly observant will note is even slower than the average rate, which incorporates multiple populations.

Ericka, this guy, and everyone else to whom they are running to try to “correct the math” are amazingly and astonishingly stupid in their ignorant smugness. It’s obvious that this teacher never read my book or my papers. He’s also never read any of the three major LTEE papers. He’s never looked up the raw data upon which those three papers drew. Because he doesn’t even know what the number he’s trying to “correct” represents.

So for all you lazy, ignorant, and smug cretins who still believe in the mathematically impossible fairy tale of evolution, I will type very, very slowly in the hopes that you can somehow follow the facts:

  1. The LTEE runs twelve identical populations of bacteria in parallel from the same ancestor. Every single evolutionary mechanism from natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, hitchhiking, epistasis, compensatory mutation, and frequency-dependent selection, to clonal interference operates simultaneously in all 12 populations for 85,000 generations and counting.
  2. Parallel fixation, the idea that the same beneficial mutation can arise and fix independently in multiple lineages, isn’t just theoretically possible in this setup, it has been directly observed. The LTEE populations have fixed mutations in the same genes, sometimes at the precisely same nucleotide position, in different populations. That’s fixation running parallel in more ways than one.
  3. The only mechanisms the LTEE doesn’t capture are sexual recombination (bacteria don’t have sex), incomplete lineage sorting (which requires a speciation event), and horizontal gene transfer (the populations are maintained in isolation). Of those three, only recombination could even theoretically speed things up, and the reproductive constraints of sexual organisms more than compensate for it in the opposite direction.
  4. When we calculated the LTEE’s total average fixation throughput at 1,322 generations per fixation, that number already includes almost every way evolution can theoretically take place, in parallel, running flat out under ideal conditions, and it still falls short of what’s needed by six orders of magnitude. Note that the maximum speed of natural selection running in parallel alone is 4,615 generations per fixation.

Note: It is worth pointing out that there are now six populations that were running faster than the 1,322 gens/fix rate at the 60,000-generation mark that are omitted from everyone’s calculations. By now, there may be seven or eight. This is not because anyone is hiding evidence that favors of the mathematical viability of evolution, in fact, this evidence will almost certainly prove conclusively that there can be no evolution over 120,000 generations of strong selective pressure, because the reason these populations are mutating faster is that all six have developed genomic cancer. If they weren’t bacteria, all six populations would already be dead. Hence my papers addressing punctuated equilibrium.

I’m not sure what is more pathetic, the fact that these “educators” don’t understand the first thing about what they’re “teaching” or the way in which the people who follow them are incapable of seeing their obvious blunders. Even when warned about where they are wrong, they blithely just plow forward in their admitted ignorance.

iando808: Hi Jan, note that Vox Day claims that Parallel fixation is accounted for (or at least justified to be excluded) in his work, whether you want to pursue that or not. His papers, all written using AI, are available on zenodo — lots of overlapping papers, a dispersed argument so harder to digest. He refuses or is incapable to get his work peer reviewed.

DeDzjang: Oh yeah, he rejects parallel fixation on shaky grounds. But I’m not schooled on this subject. I know babies differ in plusminus 60 genes from their parents. This alone shows mutation runs parallel, maybe not in 1 generation, but surely over a span of 1400 generations (=35 000 years). This number shows up in different independent research papers. There can not be two: babies differ from parents AND there is no parallel mutation. It’s one or the other.

iando808: DeDzjang — a welcome humility, unlike Vox Day who arrogantly assumes he knows more than anyone else…

I don’t arrogantly assume I know more than anyone else, I observably do know considerably more about the subject than any of these people who obviously don’t know anything at all about it, by their own admission. When did I ever reject parallel fixation on any grounds whatsoever? All I did was point out, correctly, that it was already included in the calculation. When did I ever reject natural selection, for that matter?

And since a) I don’t have any peers and b) the raw data is available in 500-generation slices, I’m putting together a method to determine what the rate of genuinely serial fixation is just to prevent these morons from being able to claim that a number specifically including parallel fixation is a number that excludes it.

UPDATE: The SERIAL natural selection rate for the LTEE at 60k generations is ~24,500 generations per fixation. I’ll want to dig in a little deeper to be certain of that, but that’s what happens when parallel fixation is excluded. So clearly I didn’t leave it out.

Note that now the evolutionists’ only hope is to argue that human mutations, and absolutely all sexually-reproducing animal mutations, somehow fixate much faster in the wild than mutations that appear in laboratory bacteria being subjected to sustained artificially strong selection pressure reported in the range of s ≈ 0.01. This would be a fascinating trick to see them try to pull off, considering that s = 0.001 is what the scientific literature reports as the mean selection coefficient for beneficial mutations in humans.

UPDATE: This guy is truly special.

i truly believe that’s what most people fail to understand in Motoo Kimura’s math. It is much more profound than evolution deniers will ever understand. I failed to get to know his calculations myself, but am now struck with the profundity of his observations and his formulas. Neutral, negative or positive contributions of genes in the selection process have a huge influence on reproduction and the rate of fixation (call it transfer, maybe). This tiny factor “s” in his formula has a devastating influence on how and why species evolve. And it matches the data from research up to this day. Kimuro died long before we unraveled the genome and still his findings are as relevant as they were in his day. Math has moved on, but is still based on his stochastics. Vox’ 8th grade math is a real step back. Puts us back even before Malthus’ formulas of the nineteenth century. That is so sad.

First, Kimura’s math has absolutely nothing to do with the LTEE. If the guy actually knew Kimura’s math, which he doesn’t, then he would know that 60,000 generations isn’t enough time for a single drift mutation according to Kimura’s own equation for time and neutral mutations. Second, at this point I understand Kimura’s math better than all of the population geneticists, let alone math teachers who don’t even know his calculations, because I have studied his derivations and corrected Franco Chalub’s 2012 work that identified how Kimura’s followers ignored his time calculations and misapplied what is a steady-state identity to time-sensitive applications.

Most of Kimura’s findings are no longer relevant to population genetics or the molecular clock. And I have proved that, both mathematically and empirically. But I doubt Mr. Math Teacher even knows what ancestral DNA is, much less how it falsified Kimura’s theories about genetic drift.

DISCUSS ON SG

No Loans for Basket-Weaving

President Trump announces an end to student loans for make-work university degrees:

President Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that the Education Department has finalized a rule that will force schools to prove that the loans students are taking out are paying off.

Degrees for social work, art, religious studies, teaching aides, and music, and cosmetic certification programs will be hit the hardest. For-profit programs will also be hit particularly hard.

First, all student loans should be outlawed and all student loan debt should be forgiven. It’s a predatory scam taking advantage of literal children. And the fact that these loans were being provided to obtain degrees that couldn’t reasonably expected to cover the cost of acquiring them only underlines their predatory nature.

It’s a good first step, but it shouldn’t be the last one.

DISCUSS ON SG

She’s On Record

@Tardus-d5y: Is there going to be a video fully dedicated to debunking Vox Day or will you only address his nonesense in the next stream?

@GutsickGibbon: full video

This promises to be absolutely hilarious.

A young woman who is still in school for biology and probably hasn’t even passed a single math exam at her fifth-rate university genuinely believes she is going to record a full video disproving the mathematical demonstration of the impossibility of evolution by natural selection as well as the irrelevance of neutral theory, genetic drift, and neutral substitution, both constructed by the man who solved the Agrippan Trilemma.

Never mind that the MITTENS math has been repeatedly stress-tested by the oppositional Red Team of Grok, Gemini, and ChatGPT, two world-class physicists, five professional mathematicians, and just last week, a Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University. Or that very little of the math that is the basis of my separate Neutral Theory argument is original, but is mostly derived from the mathematical work of Dr. Fabio Chalub, PhD in Mathematics and Professor at Universidade NOVA de Lisboa.

It’s not as if she doesn’t have fair warning in her comments already.

I have a PhD in maths from Cambridge and am working my way through Vox Day’s rather dense books and publications on this subject, and I’m yet to find any major issues with his maths.

Of course he won’t, except for the N/Ne error that I identified myself, but has not yet been corrected in a few of the older papers. There have been nearly 2,000 downloads of my paper dissolving the Trilemma since February, mostly by professional philosophers desperate to find a place where I was wrong so they can call me out for it. And there has not been a single response, not one single attempted criticism from any of them, because the solution is airtight. Given that, how does she think she’s going to find an error in my case against something much more obviously and hopelessly wrong like Neo-Darwinian natural selection, especially when she didn’t immediately recognize the citation of the LTTE or that parallel fixation is built into those numbers?

Note that I’m definitely NOT appealing to my authority or the authority of any of the various machine intelligences, physicists, or mathematicians referenced here. By all means, I encourage absolutely anyone and everyone who has any doubts about my arguments to work through the relevant math for themselves. Take your best shot. Critique it. Dig as deep as you can. That’s the purpose of the Red Team. Find the errors. I did, and others have, and my case is now far stronger for them. Ironically, my most significant error to date came from taking the evolutionary biology textbooks at face value!

I just find it amusing that an inveterate little credentialist like Ericka would pay so little heed to what any rational individual would realize is an absolutely formidable set of intellectual adversaries. Because hiding behind name-calling and butterfly collectors simply isn’t going to cut it here.

Which is why I very much doubt that the promised video is ever going to be recorded. I expect that just like she did with regards to debating me directly, she’s going to find an excuse to avoid addressing the math and the arguments on camera since she doesn’t want to be publicly eviscerated. But perhaps she’ll follow through, and maybe even produce some little tangent, hitherto unaddressed, that will allow us to drive yet another nail in the coffin, like Dennis McCarthy did. That, too, is a service.

It is also amusing to observe that these I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE retards have absolutely no comprehension of how I utilize AI. They appear to imagine I use it to generate or to support my arguments. But, as everyone who has read HARDCODED knows, I use it in exactly the opposite way.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Birth Rate Discourse is Retarded

Because no one, on either side of the permissible political discourse, is willing to address the obvious:

Here’s why this topic is so difficult to talk about intelligently in public:

The biggest predictor of fertility decline appears to be the education and employment of women.

In my experience, only the hard-left and hard-right are really willing to say this out loud, and both throw it in your face as if it ends the conversation — as if it either provides an obvious solution, or renders the whole subject unspeakable.

Of course, it does neither.

The only societies that are not in terminal, existential demographic decline are in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Islamic world. (The lone exception, Israel, is a national socialist state on a permanent war footing: the Israelis still have a very clear “us” and “them”.) Even these are merely 10-50 years behind the global trend, and declining at far greater speed than nations that started sooner.

The (unserious) implication from the Right is that if society could just get back to Putting These Broads in Their Place, then everything could get back to normal.

But positive-TFR countries aren’t modestly poorer, or modestly more conservative.

Our hyper-modern barrenness is not a function of “too many lady CEOs” or “too many lady PhDs”.

When we say that demographic collapse correlates with women’s education and employment, we mean that it correlates at the level of “escaping subsistence agriculture” and “having indoor plumbing” and “being taught to read”.

Notice how even those willing to address the unspeakable can’t bring themselves to admit the obvious and appeal to the anecdotal evidence of that one woman in the office with a college degree who has three kids. The correct diagnosis does provide an obvious solution, or at least, an obvious part of the solution. But when we observe that there isn’t an advanced society that isn’t actively committed to making the problem worse, then it’s readily apparent that the problem will not be solved, that indoor plumbing and other luxuries of the late 20th century will be reserved to the elite, and the problem of excessive education is a self-solving one, as anyone who has spoken to a recent female college graduate can readily attest.

Progress not only isn’t inevitable, it is a self-refuting concept. And 95 percent of the human race has zero need of a college education. Hell, my biggest single regret is not dropping out of college during the winter break of my sophomore year.

And for those who insist that they found one study by one female scientist that proves college-educated women are having more children than non-college educated women – and I’ll bet she only counted women who completed their degrees and not those who attended between one and seven years of college without doing so – I would merely point out that the thirteenth year of education is not the dividing line for fertility collapse anywhere on the planet.

DISCUSS ON SG

Diversity Kills

The imposters can’t handle it when their manufactured success is exposed for the total fraud that it is.

Aug 12: Jason Arday, a professor at the University of Cambridge and DEI poster boy, has RESIGNED after being accused of plagiarism and lying about his career achievements

August 15: Jason Arday, the Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism and career lies, has just been found DEAD in a south London home.

The tragic aspect of this is that there is no way Mr. Arday concocted this ridiculous persona entirely on his own. He almost certainly had a considerable amount of assistance in doing so, and everyone who “helped” him bears at least some responsibility for his fate.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Useless College Degree

It used to be that at least the possession of a university degree meant that you weren’t an innumerate, half-illiterate peasant. This is no longer the case.

Gone are the days of university freshmen reading classical philosophers like Plato or contemporary pedagogues like Ta-Nehisi Coates. These days, incoming college students are lucky if they can get through Judy Blume’s “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing.”

According to a new “Survey of Adult Skills” conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – a forum for 38 high-income, predominantly Western countries – a not insignificant number of adult students enrolled in higher education are now reading and doing math at a level which, in a more functional society, would be alarming for a middle schooler.

The survey, first spotted by the Economist, tested around 160,000 people of all ages, across all 38 member states. It found that across all OECD member countries, a full 8 percent of college students are reading at the level of a ten-year-old, if not worse. While countries like Germany and France rang in at under 5 percent, countries like Poland, Israel, and the United States blew the curve at 21, 20, and 14 percent, respectively.

The numbers aren’t much better when it comes to math.

Across OECD countries, 9 percent of college students do math at or below a ten-year-old level. In Italy, the US, and Slovakia, that figure jumps to over 15 percent — only outdone by Israel, where roughly 21 percent of college students were underachieving at the same low benchmark.

This certainly puts the lie to the concept of Progress, or the idea that we are smarter than our ancestors because Science. But giving pieces of papers to peasants no more makes them educated or intelligent than giving pieces of paper to foreigners modifies their genetics.

Part of the reason for the decline of the Western countries is the mass importation of sub-100 IQs bringing down the average. But a more significant element is the convergence of the schools and universities, neither of which are still capable of performing what used to be their primary functions.

DISCUSS ON SG

Common Sense Calculus

I’m not going to lie. I think I would have grasped calculus a lot more easily, and perhaps even remembered it better, if it had been taught to me by starting with the actual meaning of the symbols instead of with all the jargon and symbols unconnected to the underlying concepts, as it used to be taught to 15-year-old American boys instead of not being taught to university graduates.

The preliminary terror, which chokes off most fifth-­form boys from even attempting to learn how to calculate, can be abolished once for all by simply stating what is the meaning—in common-sense terms—of the two principal symbols that are used in calculating.

These dreadful symbols are:

(1) d which merely means “ a little bit of.” Thus dx means a little bit of x; or du means a little bit of u. Ordinary mathematicians think it more polite to say “ an element of,” instead of “ a little bit of.” Just as you please. But you will find that these little bits (or elements) may be considered to be indefinitely small.

(2) f which is merely a long S, and may be called (if you like) “ the sum of.” Thus fdx means the sum of all the little bits of x or fdt means the sum of all the little bits of t. Ordinary mathematicians call this symbol “the integral of.”

Now any fool can see that if x is considered as made up of a lot of little bits, each of which is called dx, if you add them all up together you get the sum of all the dxs, which is the same thing as the whole of x. The word “integral” simply means “the whole.” If you think of the duration of time for one hour, you may (if you like) think of it as cut up into 3,600 little bits called seconds. The whole of the 3,600 little bits added up together make one hour.

When you see an expression that begins with this terrifying symbol, you will henceforth know that it is put there merely to give you instructions that you are now to perform the operation (if you can) of totalling up all the little bits that are indicated by the symbols that follow.

That’s all.

If anyone is interested in Castalia re-releasing this early 20th century introduction to Calculus, let me know. Although I have to say, I think we’d lose the parentheticals, which are unnecessary and don’t help at all.

DISCUSS ON SG

Learning From History

Dominic Cummings is attempting to help people better understand the repeated failures of the governing elites, or at least, the elites that appears to be governing. He started this back in 2023.

One of the most fundamental things I’ve learned in 24 years involvement is that almost nobody has any interest in general principles underlying success and failure, nor interest in execution/management, and although political people read a lot of history books it’s hard to see any learning.

This is a core feature of why the world is as it is. It’s why I found a lot of interest in Silicon Valley about ‘why did Leave win the referendum’ and ‘how exactly does No10 and the deep state work’ but in London practically no interest beyond the surface phenomena. This is so extreme I’ve found more interest from people in San Francisco in ‘how exactly does X work’ than I have from the actual minister in London nominally ‘in charge’ of X.

So this is mainly for a) people outside politics interested in how it really works and b) people (almost all young) interested in the general problem of ‘the hard thing about doing really hard things’ (cf. Ben Horowitz’s excellent book on this in the entrepreneur context). I predict I will have ~100X more interest from entrepreneurs and researchers than from people ‘working in politics’. (And 1,000X more interest from some deep state officials than MPs who aren’t even interested in how the media really works even though they’re obsessed with the media.) But I also learned that odd people in politics are interested in these things and the <1% who are interested have an interesting knack of finding each other and working on things. These people are disproportionately young. (This is partly what happened in Vote Leave.)

If you disbelieve me, reflect on one simple fact that I’ve hammered repeatedly: the entire Westminster debate has, with the sort of ruthless focus it cannot muster to achieve anything positive, totally ignored the loathed, despised, lowest status issue in Westminster — how the government actually buys critical goods and services and the capacity of our industrial production. And it has maintained this ruthless focus through the worst pandemic in a century that left over a hundred thousand unnecessarily choking to death then through the biggest war in Europe since 1945. There has literally been more interest in Russel Brand among political-media-academia elites than this central aspect of how our state and society work and why we’re worse at it than we were in the pre-computer age.

We are living through exactly what we read about in periods like summer 1914 — a structural blindness of dominant political-media-academic elites about core features of the system they participate in all day. We read history books about summer 1914 and ask ‘how could the entire Cabinet week after week not probe exactly what our military commitments to Belgium were, what exactly the plans were, and expose that there was no actual plan or institution to cope with the crisis’. We’re in a worse situation than they were.

It’s a disaster and an opportunity. And studying this chronology can help you see how to create opportunities from disasters. In 2015 I thought the structure of the system was a disaster but the referendum was an opportunity and I tried to apply some of the things I’d learned. This proved unexpectedly successful. And, in keeping with the point above about people struggling to learn, the same happened in 2019 even though powerful forces really wanted it not to happen.

What’s needed is a shift in governing institutions roughly as profound as the shift from the ancien regime pre-1789 to what we think of as the modern western state — a shift in the types of people, their training, their tools, institutions, and the fundamental principles and incentives by which they operate. We are still governed by the Cabinet Room almost indistinguishable from what it looked like when it was overwhelmed in summer 1914: a dozen or so people with poor education and training on top of highly centralised dysfunctional institutions largely blind to the incredible system complexity yet responsible for crises that can affect billions. 

His Bismarck project is a fascinating one. I’m giving some serious contemplation into engaging in it, assuming that he’s actually continued with it over the last two years, and it might make for an interesting collective effort in the old Voxiversity sense. Share your thoughts on this if it might be of any interest to you.

DISCUSS ON SG

An Existential Crisis

It’s a little hard to take seriously the warnings of those who proclaim an “existential crisis” due to declining fertility rates when they won’t even address the primary cause of those declining rates and are not aware of the primary cause in declining fertility. Even when the crisis is real.

The U.S. is facing a worsening fertility crisis, according to analysts.

While the nation’s fertility rate has been declining for decades, it dropped to a new record low in 2025. Experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that deregulation, improving fertility care and bringing down costs related to raising children could help boost the declining birth rate.

The U.S. general fertility rate was 53.1 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 2025, down from 53.8 in 2024, according to National Center for Health Statistics data published in April.

“While there are many factors contributing to the declining birth rate, three reasons stand out to me: First, there is the influence of smart phones and social media,” Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Emma Water told the DCNF. “Since the introduction of the iPhone, [every] country has seen a marked decline in births that doesn’t look like it is reversing any time soon, including the U.S. … we are seeing more men and women replace meaningful time with others with scrolling, screen addictions, or a sense that there is too much to be done.”

“Second, we cannot discount the role of abortion, birth control, and reproductive technologies,” Waters said. “While we can have a meaningful conversation about the morality of each separately, the statistics don’t lie: The last year that the birth rate was above replacement was 1972, and since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade erroneously created a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, the birth rate has never recovered.”

Waters added that a drop in U.S. marriage rates is one of the “primary drivers of declining birth rates.”

The U.S. marriage rate dropped to a 140-year low in 2019 and has yet to fully bounce back, The New York Times reported. Less than half of American households were married couples in 2025, marking a significant decrease from 50 years earlier, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

Prioritizing infertility treatment and early diagnosis could help boost the U.S. fertility rate, according to Waters.

First, prioritizing infertility treatment will only make matters worse. Average female fertility has been dropping steadily since 1900 due to the frozen gene and the inability of natural selection to continue keeping the human genome free of deleterious mutations, so using technology to help the genetically deficient to reproduce is digging the hole deeper. This is a very serious scientific problem that concerns genetic degradation and most of the solutions appear to range from ghastly and politically impossible to unthinkable and inhuman.

Second, the problem with fertility rates is about female choices, not genetic degradation. The problem is that women like Emma Water are college-educated and Senior Policy Analysts at the Heritage Foundation instead of getting married at 20 and having 4-6 children.

This is not a mystery and this is not in doubt. The correlation between post-8th-grade female education and declining fertility is extremely high, and while correlation is not necessarily causation, a high degree of correlation does tend to point toward correct causality. And this causation is sufficiently well-known that overpopulation advocates specifically push for female education in order to reduce birth rates.

DISCUSS ON SG

Rethinking University

Now even women are beginning to realize that a college degree is a terrible investment of time and money that accomplishes little more than put a young person into lifelong debt. And this is in the UK, where the degrees are less expensive and the debt can be eliminated after 30 years.

I was 18, full of hope and expectation, with three years ahead of me studying English Literature and the authors I loved, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Virginia Woolf.Seven years on, though, and life looks very different.
Yes, I had a great time. I read a lot of books, made lifelong friends and played masses of sport. But was any of it truly worth it? Financially, professionally, socially and even in terms of ‘real’ education – would I have been better off turning around, dumping my gown on the floor of my halls, heading back down the M1 and buckling down to a proper job?
Let’s take the money first. By the time I’d finished my undergraduate degree in 2022 – followed by a one-year Masters in English Literature at Bristol University then a journalism qualification – I’d borrowed nearly £60,000, despite doing part-time jobs throughout.
Two years on from finishing my further education, and now that I’m earning a fairly typical graduate salary, thanks to the appalling interest rate my student loan balance stands at £76,227.49. In the past five months, I’ve contributed £335 towards the loan, yet the total amount has risen by £627.49.
I’m essentially paying a ‘graduate tax’ of nine per cent of my gross income for the course of my working life. I may never pay the loan back – 44 per cent of graduates won’t, according to the Government’s own figures – and it’s only scant comfort that the debt will be wiped after 30 years.
Durham is generally seen as one of Britain’s better universities, perhaps second only to Oxbridge. So if I feel like this, what about the 2.86 million other students currently enrolled in other universities across the country?

Only ten percent of men used to attend university back in the time when a university degree actually meant something, and that was largely because only the true cognitive elite attended. There is absolutely no reason for most men and virtually all women to pursue a university degree, as doing so virtually guarantees a suboptimal life track compared to not wasting 4-5 years out of the workforce, gaining no experience, being ideologically indoctrinated by wicked retards, and ending up saddled with lifelong debt.

UPDATE: Here is a comprehensive return-on-investment calculator for virtually every institution of post-high school learning in the USA, but keep in mind that the return-on-investment doesn’t include debt, so the debt calculations need to be compared to the hypothetical ROI.

DISCUSS ON SG