Is college more about signaling than learning?

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.

Yep. College is by far the biggest scam to exist in recent history. I'm hating every moment of it, and only through the teachings of the dark-side am I able to sustain myself.

Finding the motivation to go through all this bullshit, have it take years off my life, all in exchange for a worthless degree from an adult day-care center that won't do anything for me is a daily challenge.

With the exception of maybe nursing, engineering fields, and finance much of what is learned is antiquated material that will never be used in someone's career.

But you're right; employers higher college grads b/c they have a piece of paper that says they can handle large amounts of bullshit—not because of technical skills.

Elon Musk has said himself he doesn't give a rat's ass if you have a college degree.

I'm anti-academia college student. Go figure.

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.

^ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.