Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Perhaps most notably elaborated on by Bryan Caplan, the signaling model of education posits that the primary value obtained in a degree is the credential it gives you rather than the knowledge or skills it imparts. Essentially, employers hire college graduates because college graduates tend to be more capable than non-graduates, and people go to colleges because they know employers favor college graduates. In the meanwhile, it isn't self-evident how most majors map very clearly onto things you do in the workplace. STEM fields aren't exempt - most engineers don't use lots of differential equations on the job, nor do most software engineers analyze algorithm runtimes. It seems, from this model, that universities represent a bad equilibrium condition.

There are, of course, legitimate counterarguments - the most obvious is that some professional tracks do require deep academic coursework, e.g. academia.

Sadly this is no longer just something that happens only in College. This kind of Bullshit goes all the way down to Kindergarten now.

Plenty of stories where young white children come home and tell their parents They are Bad because their teaches told them its because they are white.

Leftists are spreading a New Wave of Racial Hate in this Nation.

And they started it with the Children.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Perhaps most notably elaborated on by Bryan Caplan, the signaling model of education posits that the primary value obtained in a degree is the credential it gives you rather than the knowledge or skills it imparts. Essentially, employers hire college graduates because college graduates tend to be more capable than non-graduates, and people go to colleges because they know employers favor college graduates. In the meanwhile, it isn't self-evident how most majors map very clearly onto things you do in the workplace. STEM fields aren't exempt - most engineers don't use lots of differential equations on the job, nor do most software engineers analyze algorithm runtimes. It seems, from this model, that universities represent a bad equilibrium condition.

There are, of course, legitimate counterarguments - the most obvious is that some professional tracks do require deep academic coursework, e.g. academia.

Yes. For example, degrees do not teach you shit for long-term use for any technology field as it would apply to the real world. I feel that degrees are outdated hold-overs.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Perhaps most notably elaborated on by Bryan Caplan, the signaling model of education posits that the primary value obtained in a degree is the credential it gives you rather than the knowledge or skills it imparts. Essentially, employers hire college graduates because college graduates tend to be more capable than non-graduates, and people go to colleges because they know employers favor college graduates. In the meanwhile, it isn't self-evident how most majors map very clearly onto things you do in the workplace. STEM fields aren't exempt - most engineers don't use lots of differential equations on the job, nor do most software engineers analyze algorithm runtimes. It seems, from this model, that universities represent a bad equilibrium condition.

There are, of course, legitimate counterarguments - the most obvious is that some professional tracks do require deep academic coursework, e.g. academia. To a point, tbh the College you went to is the biggest signal of all. My first degree is from Kings College University of London. The College means more than the degree or the subject.

^ Proud Participant of White Male Privilege. It is why He is where He is today.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To a point, tbh the College you went to is the biggest signal of all. My first degree is from Kings College University of London. The College means more than the degree or the subject.

What I'm seeing, and I may be part of this, is less emphasis on the college attended and more emphasis on the area of study and your LinkedIn shit with references.

It's becoming "Does he have a degree? Check. 5 years in x field? Check. Setup an interview." And with the AI sorting the resumes, it tells them which match to a specific percentage, as well.

When you have two equal candidates after a round of interviews, I bet you the college attended could be a tiebreaker, though, so I digress.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To a point, tbh the College you went to is the biggest signal of all. My first degree is from Kings College University of London. The College means more than the degree or the subject. Nice, you must work on Paternoster Square then, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I'm seeing, and I may be part of this, is less emphasis on the college attended and more emphasis on the area of study and your LinkedIn shit with references.

It's becoming "Does he have a degree? Check. 5 years in x field? Check. Setup an interview." And with the AI sorting the resumes, it tells them which match to a specific percentage, as well.

When you have two equal candidates after a round of interviews, I bet you the college attended could be a tiebreaker, though, so I digress. In the UK and UK companies, to a point Fly is right. Certain Colleges, Any part of Cambridge, and Oxford, Imperial, Kings, LSE, Russell Group Universities. All say to employers, he's one of us.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/impact/index-map.aspx

Originally posted by Putinbot1
In the UK and UK companies, to a point Fly is right. Certain Colleges, Any part of Cambridge, and Oxford, Imperial, Kings, LSE, Russell Group Universities. All say to employers, he's one of us.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/impact/index-map.aspx

To add to your point, one of my previous positions I feel I got because I just had graduated from the university for which my boss was on the board of education. It's the "one of us" mentality that you speak of.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To a point, tbh the College you went to is the biggest signal of all. My first degree is from Kings College University of London. The College means more than the degree or the subject.

Which isn't entirely unreasonable. Your average Harvard student going to community college for four years is still a better hire than your average random state school student on graduating.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To add to your point, one of my previous positions I feel I got because I just had graduated from the university for which my boss was on the board of education. It's the "one of us" mentality that you speak of. It's a sad but true fact life is as much about who you know as what you know and some Universities let you know more of the right people, particularly if you eventually want to work globally. I worked in the UK a long time and then realised whilst I was earning OK money there, I could earn a lot more for the same work going global. Kings and Nottingham, 2 of my Universities are prestigious and I had contacts.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Which isn't entirely unreasonable. Your average Harvard student going to community college for four years is still a better hire than your average random state school student on graduating. I don't disagree in many ways, it's also though the soft skills those places teach you. Which you will not get at some Colleges.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Which isn't entirely unreasonable. Your average Harvard student going to community college for four years is still a better hire than your average random state school student on graduating.

hmm

I think so...


Here's what I see in employees (and let me know if you disagree, please):


The best employees have gone to community college as long as possible and then completed the minimum requirements to earn the "big name university" degree. Transferred their credits, basically.


The reason these people end up being great employees is it seems they think ahead and select the most advantageous path. That type of thinking spills over into other areas and makes them great employees.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm

I think so...


Here's what I see in employees (and let me know if you disagree, please):


The best employees have gone to community college as long as possible and then completed the minimum requirements to earn the "big name university" degree. Transferred their credits, basically.


The reason these people end up being great employees is it seems they think ahead and select the most advantageous path. That type of thinking spills over into other areas and makes them great employees. I think it also depends what the job needs are you looking for a social person or a technician etc. Many techs are quite introverted, a stereotype i'll grant you, but one with more than a grain of reality in it like all good stereotypes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reason these people end up being great employees is it seems they think ahead and select the most advantageous path. That type of thinking spills over into other areas and makes them great employees.

That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's more effective than other means of identifying good employees. For one thing, there may be legitimate reasons to go straight to a 4-year school (especially if it's a sufficiently selective one that you can't be sure they'll accept a community college transfer), and some people going first to community college might be doing so out of not getting in anywhere else.

To be honest, a lot of companies and professions will only employ you if they see you as one of "them" regardless of grades in Europe, this may not be true in the UK, I have no experience of US companies and hiring practices really.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think it also depends what the job needs are you looking for a social person or a technician etc. Many techs are quite introverted, a stereotype i'll grant you, but one with more than a grain of reality in it like all good stereotypes.

You're also not wrong, here. The number of quiet, introverted, software engineers that I currently employ is...well, almost all of them. The extroverted and "loud" ones get promoted into leadership fairly quickly. I don't think the quieter ones - that would preferred to be given a detailed set of requirements and just be left alone while they code - even want a leadership position.

Think it really depends on what you're studying.

Though these days it seems college is just little more than a scheme to get young people saddled with a lifetime of extreme debt, though.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's more effective than other means of identifying good employees.

Apologies, I never intended that to be a "KPI" for potential hires. It was just a trend I started to notice with people I have hired.



The best measure, I've seen, is to talk to someone NOT in their reference list who directly worked with them before. And this person needs to be someone you know is honest and can be trusted to give a genuine reference.

Interesting - I imagine this might not be very scalable though (imagine a large corporation having to find an impartial, trustworthy reference for every competitive applicant, or to otherwise restrict their hiring pool to friends of friends).

It's about money, same as anything else. And "presteige", which translates to money.

You know what happens with tuition assistance programs? Colleges raise the cost of tuition to capture that money, and leave students under the same burden as before.


Seriously, ask yourself who runs colleges. Who's in charge here? It isn't the professors, I'll tell you that. And it isn't the school administration.

It's usually the board of trustees. In Yales case, it's called "Yale Corporate". The Governor is always a de facto member.

That means the governor is on the board of Yale, AND the University of Connecticut.

The other members are some parts elected by the board, some parts inherited in.. NONE of them is put in by anyone at the schools. Their word is law, and they answer to no one.

I'm sure they're not in the slightest bit self interested or corrupt. Gods, no. It's all about the students best interest!

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Perhaps most notably elaborated on by Bryan Caplan, the signaling model of education posits that the primary value obtained in a degree is the credential it gives you rather than the knowledge or skills it imparts. Essentially, employers hire college graduates because college graduates tend to be more capable than non-graduates, and people go to colleges because they know employers favor college graduates. In the meanwhile, it isn't self-evident how most majors map very clearly onto things you do in the workplace. STEM fields aren't exempt - most engineers don't use lots of differential equations on the job, nor do most software engineers analyze algorithm runtimes. It seems, from this model, that universities represent a bad equilibrium condition.

There are, of course, legitimate counterarguments - the most obvious is that some professional tracks do require deep academic coursework, e.g. academia.

Responding to this directly...

Do you know how professors are trained for the job?

They aren't. They're all literally making it up as they go.

Professors career advancement is based research, how much they publish, and the kind of journals they publish to (Because presteige is everything to a University.)

This is good training to be a researcher, not so much to teach students.


Then there's the Wal-Mart employee version called an Adjunct, who exist solely to free up researchers and save money on underpaid instructors.. The pay is so bad, many have five jobs at five colleges on any number of subjects.


So is it any wonder students learn a lot of useless shite? Teaching college kids is the university equivilent of flipping burgers.