3 ms·

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

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.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    College costs are, IMO, entirely because student loans removed the need for colleges to compete on price. Regardless of cost and value, students could get loans to cover it. So in order to compete, institutions branched out into what's basically bling, with sports being a salient example. There's also a fundamental economic pressure from non-education productivity. It takes just as many man-hours to teach a class, but those man-hours would go further growing potatos or making widgets. I have a suspicion that the problem can't be supplied out of. Not everyone can have the nicest house in the neighborhood, no matter how many nice houses you build. It wasn't that long ago that high-school education or the equivalent was something that set you apart and ahead. Now it's just kind of an assumed requirement. I'm afraid that making an undergraduate degree ubiquitous would make a master's degree the new bachelor's. In some fields, this is already happening.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      That's a fair enough point. You simply keep raising the bar for how much education people need. But I don't think that's a problem of job seeking or education, but of the economy in general. There are simply fewer things for people to do. I'm no Marxist, but it does seem glaringly obvious to me that since the industrial revolution we have made more things with machines, requiring fewer people. For a while increased consumerism meant we could re-purpose people into making new stuff, and when that was automated we could shuffle them into service jobs, but there's a cap on that. Increasingly, only the most qualified people will be able to do the fewer and fewer things there are to do. That's why college is so important. There's no chance without it. But I do think the supply can be solved. I think "everyone gets loans" oversimplify the issue because most institutions are state run, there isn't really much competition in the free-market sense of the word. Because the government controls the bulk of higher education in the US, we are in a better position to solve this problem than any other discussed. Part of it is to start supporting it again. Return grant programs and create real financial aid so people who need money can get it and people who don't aren't forced to take it.

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.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  College costs are, IMO, entirely because student loans removed the need for colleges to compete on price. Regardless of cost and value, students could get loans to cover it. So in order to compete, institutions branched out into what's basically bling, with sports being a salient example. There's also a fundamental economic pressure from non-education productivity. It takes just as many man-hours to teach a class, but those man-hours would go further growing potatos or making widgets. I have a suspicion that the problem can't be supplied out of. Not everyone can have the nicest house in the neighborhood, no matter how many nice houses you build. It wasn't that long ago that high-school education or the equivalent was something that set you apart and ahead. Now it's just kind of an assumed requirement. I'm afraid that making an undergraduate degree ubiquitous would make a master's degree the new bachelor's. In some fields, this is already happening.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    That's a fair enough point. You simply keep raising the bar for how much education people need. But I don't think that's a problem of job seeking or education, but of the economy in general. There are simply fewer things for people to do. I'm no Marxist, but it does seem glaringly obvious to me that since the industrial revolution we have made more things with machines, requiring fewer people. For a while increased consumerism meant we could re-purpose people into making new stuff, and when that was automated we could shuffle them into service jobs, but there's a cap on that. Increasingly, only the most qualified people will be able to do the fewer and fewer things there are to do. That's why college is so important. There's no chance without it. But I do think the supply can be solved. I think "everyone gets loans" oversimplify the issue because most institutions are state run, there isn't really much competition in the free-market sense of the word. Because the government controls the bulk of higher education in the US, we are in a better position to solve this problem than any other discussed. Part of it is to start supporting it again. Return grant programs and create real financial aid so people who need money can get it and people who don't aren't forced to take it.