5 ms·

College is a positional good, so "Is college worth it" is a question with two answers. Let me explain. The first question is "as an individual job-seeker, is c

College is a positional good, so "Is college worth it" is a question with two answers. Let me explain. The first question is "as an individual job-seeker, is college worth it to me personally". Which it probably still is - there's very real discrimination against folks without a degree. The second question is "for job-seekers as a class, does college help them". Which it almost certainly isn't - there's a huge amount of time and money spent on what's mostly a piece of paper that says "I'm smart enough to get into college, not-lower-class enough to spend the time and money, and obedient enough to jump through arbitrary hoops". Employees as a class aren't magically better because they have a piece of paper, they're better because of specific skills and abilities that they learn that enable extra productivity. People see that college is worth it for individuals, and then they go and shovel gigantic piles of money at college for everyone, and this just pisses me the hell off because it's so goddamn wasteful. IMO, the only realistic way out of this hole is to make it illegal to ask about college education or verify with an issuing institution whether or not you have a degree. If an employer asks, they get sued or prosecuted. If a job-seeker tells, the employer can't find out if they're lying. Only remaining thing is to screen for actual knowledge, like "are you a good enough engineer to not make buildings that collapse". Professional exams - like the Fundamentals of Engineering or actuarial exams - seem like an appropriate fit for that.

Kinnard 10y ago
That's a great idea, like the ban the box campaigns to prevent discrimination against ex-con's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ I bet some sort of uncollege[1] labor group that calls out and rallies/lobbies against discrimination would be effective too. [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnCollegeNetwork https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnCollegeNetwork
stinkytaco 10y ago
I like this idea, but I also routinely see criticism on HN of interviews that attempt to determine knowledge level (puzzle solving, programming tasks, and so on). And, of course, you start to wade into the problem of any exam, that it's too narrow, biased, and so on. I think your point about job-seekers as a class is mostly right, but it doesn't bring into account one of the things college provides you, which is a well-rounded education. Now, this may or may not be worthwhile to you, but my experience is that college is a good shorthand to "will this person be a good coworker". There are plenty of things about that hoop jumping that have value in the working world. They are probably OK in teams, they are probably OK at administrative work, and so on. I had a friend who went to MIT that said "if someone graduated from MIT, at least I know they have good time management skills". This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of the college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college graduates I've worked with.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Does college provide it, or select for it? This is extraordinarily important. If it teaches good time management skills, then we can get more of that by expanding college programs. If it merely fails out people who don't have good time management skills, then there are cheaper ways to get a piece of paper proving that the holder has good time management skills. >This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of the college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college graduates I've worked with. And even if true, this is not an argument to expand college education. Like, I absolutely agree that there's good reasons for individual employers to prefer college graduates. There's also good reasons for individual fishing boats to prefer over-fishing.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    Where the overfishing analogy breaks down is that we have the power to provide enough fish. College doesn't have to be expensive. As little as 15 years ago it was quite possible to work your way through college and come out with manageable debt. Something else happened to balloon the cost of education in that time period. Perhaps the increased reliance on loans, cuts in financial aid to students and state assistance to universities, ballooning student services and administration costs, etc. I don't know. But it certainly seems like a problem that can be solved on the supply end. Which leads me to the other end of the equation, the job market. The distinction between selection and training isn't important to me as an employer. What I as an employer know is that college is a good shorthand for a variety of skills I feel are important. Knowledge testing doesn't cover those skills. It would likely encourage me to disregard entry level candidates in favor of ones with previous work experience or contacts I trust. Right now I'm fairly confident taking a flyer on a young person either in or recently graduated from college that interviews well, but that confidence would decrease without that knowledge and I don't have any shortage of candidates with work experience. I'm willing to explore new ways of evaluation, but I think over time college became optimized for putting out good white collar employees. And employers have become optimized to working with people that have a certain, homogeneous educational background. Before we cut that wire, we need to have the alternative evaluation pieces in place or the negative externalities, especially on young candidates, would be huge.

Kinnard 10y ago

That's a great idea, like the ban the box campaigns to prevent discrimination against ex-con's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ I bet some sort of uncollege[1] labor group that calls out and rallies/lobbies against discrimination would be effective too. [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnCollegeNetwork https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnCollegeNetwork

stinkytaco 10y ago

I like this idea, but I also routinely see criticism on HN of interviews that attempt to determine knowledge level (puzzle solving, programming tasks, and so on). And, of course, you start to wade into the problem of any exam, that it's too narrow, biased, and so on. I think your point about job-seekers as a class is mostly right, but it doesn't bring into account one of the things college provides you, which is a well-rounded education. Now, this may or may not be worthwhile to you, but my experience is that college is a good shorthand to "will this person be a good coworker". There are plenty of things about that hoop jumping that have value in the working world. They are probably OK in teams, they are probably OK at administrative work, and so on. I had a friend who went to MIT that said "if someone graduated from MIT, at least I know they have good time management skills". This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of the college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college graduates I've worked with.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Does college provide it, or select for it? This is extraordinarily important. If it teaches good time management skills, then we can get more of that by expanding college programs. If it merely fails out people who don't have good time management skills, then there are cheaper ways to get a piece of paper proving that the holder has good time management skills. >This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of the college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college graduates I've worked with. And even if true, this is not an argument to expand college education. Like, I absolutely agree that there's good reasons for individual employers to prefer college graduates. There's also good reasons for individual fishing boats to prefer over-fishing.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  Where the overfishing analogy breaks down is that we have the power to provide enough fish. College doesn't have to be expensive. As little as 15 years ago it was quite possible to work your way through college and come out with manageable debt. Something else happened to balloon the cost of education in that time period. Perhaps the increased reliance on loans, cuts in financial aid to students and state assistance to universities, ballooning student services and administration costs, etc. I don't know. But it certainly seems like a problem that can be solved on the supply end. Which leads me to the other end of the equation, the job market. The distinction between selection and training isn't important to me as an employer. What I as an employer know is that college is a good shorthand for a variety of skills I feel are important. Knowledge testing doesn't cover those skills. It would likely encourage me to disregard entry level candidates in favor of ones with previous work experience or contacts I trust. Right now I'm fairly confident taking a flyer on a young person either in or recently graduated from college that interviews well, but that confidence would decrease without that knowledge and I don't have any shortage of candidates with work experience. I'm willing to explore new ways of evaluation, but I think over time college became optimized for putting out good white collar employees. And employers have become optimized to working with people that have a certain, homogeneous educational background. Before we cut that wire, we need to have the alternative evaluation pieces in place or the negative externalities, especially on young candidates, would be huge.