5 ms·

Repost of one of my old comments: I think it's worth pointing out that higher education is mostly a filtering mechanism not an enrichment mechanism, and a terri

Repost of one of my old comments: I think it's worth pointing out that higher education is mostly a filtering mechanism not an enrichment mechanism, and a terribly inefficient one at that. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion that lack these things. Panning does not create gold.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.. by saying that education is a "filtering mechanism" you essentially claim that educated people have some inherent ability that uneducated people don't have. And you don't base your Rayndian claims on any sociological studies The fact that high school graduation rates went from 6% at the beginning of the century to almost 80% at the end, means that humans are capable of learning a wide variety subjects ..inherent ability is overrated. EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. And we won't waste our countries intellectual capital. This improves the individuals lives and the economy as a whole Education is absolutely an "enrichment mechanism". With the exception of upper level math or particle physics is attainable by anyone.
- scj 9y ago
  I would be interested in the experiences of STEM majors/graduates in nations where tuition is free.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  >EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. This is not the case. If my thesis is correct, which I think it is, you could replace college for the vast majority of people with 1 standardized test for thousands of times less cost. Don't you think its odd that the college boom started just after IQ tests for employment became illegal? When IQ tests were outlawed for use in employment, with the exception of the military and universities (a hilarious irony), it became uneconomical for employers who needed well-above-average people to train their own employees, as they could not filter for intelligence first. Before Griggs vs Duke Power it was common for an uneducated person to score well on an IQ test, get promoted, learn on the job and work their way up to the top. Now that same person is forced to go to college, waste thousands of dollars and years of wages to do the same thing, giving a cut to the professors and the administrators (most of whom have conveniently propounded IQ denialism until just recently when the science has become so blatant that it is embarrassing to do so). This system vastly decreases the probability of someone improving their lot. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally intelligent. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally tall. But this isn't the case, and if you base policy on the supposition you get the waste and rent seeking that is emblematic of the education system at all levels.
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    I disagree. They still need to take the time to get that knowledge from somewhere? I don't think anyone is born with the knowledge.
    - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
      Most people would learn fine on the job. For things like higher maths and physics, I think apprenticeship and autodidacticism would be a good form of this. The trades have a much better model than most. Apprenticeship would work particularly well in computer science.
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    Yeah but IQ are notoriously inaccurate and in no way a similar trait as height. Measuring height is an objective biological measurement. IQ is a measure of a state of consciousness with so many different confounding factors. This is a Nature vs Nurture question and you're going 100% all in on the Nature side of the argument....some sort of inherent genetic IQ predisposition. Saying one has a permanant IQ is equivalent to saying mexicans inherently like to steal hubcabs. When it comes to measures of IQ and other states of consciousness environment plays a massive role. Google "labeling theory" and "Motivation theory". IQ tests are proven to have so many counfounding factors that they're not taken seriously. For example: 1> Groups exposed to abstract reasoning problems during school or prep courses do way better on IQ tests... 2> IQ is also shown to increase as people get older.... 3>Not to mention going to university is shown to INCREASE one's score on IQ tests.... So how accurate of a test is that? The reason it's outlawed is because it's essentially stereotyping. It's a bullshit oversimplified view of how the brain works, and factually incorrect and Nazi-ish. We can have an oversimplified filtering system, a single test that determines peoples futures.......or we can put people in an environment like university where education and learning is encouraged...and see if they meet their genetic potential. I think the second way is less insane.

nickthemagicman 9y ago

Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.. by saying that education is a "filtering mechanism" you essentially claim that educated people have some inherent ability that uneducated people don't have. And you don't base your Rayndian claims on any sociological studies The fact that high school graduation rates went from 6% at the beginning of the century to almost 80% at the end, means that humans are capable of learning a wide variety subjects ..inherent ability is overrated. EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. And we won't waste our countries intellectual capital. This improves the individuals lives and the economy as a whole Education is absolutely an "enrichment mechanism". With the exception of upper level math or particle physics is attainable by anyone.

scj 9y ago
I would be interested in the experiences of STEM majors/graduates in nations where tuition is free.
Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
>EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. This is not the case. If my thesis is correct, which I think it is, you could replace college for the vast majority of people with 1 standardized test for thousands of times less cost. Don't you think its odd that the college boom started just after IQ tests for employment became illegal? When IQ tests were outlawed for use in employment, with the exception of the military and universities (a hilarious irony), it became uneconomical for employers who needed well-above-average people to train their own employees, as they could not filter for intelligence first. Before Griggs vs Duke Power it was common for an uneducated person to score well on an IQ test, get promoted, learn on the job and work their way up to the top. Now that same person is forced to go to college, waste thousands of dollars and years of wages to do the same thing, giving a cut to the professors and the administrators (most of whom have conveniently propounded IQ denialism until just recently when the science has become so blatant that it is embarrassing to do so). This system vastly decreases the probability of someone improving their lot. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally intelligent. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally tall. But this isn't the case, and if you base policy on the supposition you get the waste and rent seeking that is emblematic of the education system at all levels.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  I disagree. They still need to take the time to get that knowledge from somewhere? I don't think anyone is born with the knowledge.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    Most people would learn fine on the job. For things like higher maths and physics, I think apprenticeship and autodidacticism would be a good form of this. The trades have a much better model than most. Apprenticeship would work particularly well in computer science.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  Yeah but IQ are notoriously inaccurate and in no way a similar trait as height. Measuring height is an objective biological measurement. IQ is a measure of a state of consciousness with so many different confounding factors. This is a Nature vs Nurture question and you're going 100% all in on the Nature side of the argument....some sort of inherent genetic IQ predisposition. Saying one has a permanant IQ is equivalent to saying mexicans inherently like to steal hubcabs. When it comes to measures of IQ and other states of consciousness environment plays a massive role. Google "labeling theory" and "Motivation theory". IQ tests are proven to have so many counfounding factors that they're not taken seriously. For example: 1> Groups exposed to abstract reasoning problems during school or prep courses do way better on IQ tests... 2> IQ is also shown to increase as people get older.... 3>Not to mention going to university is shown to INCREASE one's score on IQ tests.... So how accurate of a test is that? The reason it's outlawed is because it's essentially stereotyping. It's a bullshit oversimplified view of how the brain works, and factually incorrect and Nazi-ish. We can have an oversimplified filtering system, a single test that determines peoples futures.......or we can put people in an environment like university where education and learning is encouraged...and see if they meet their genetic potential. I think the second way is less insane.