4 ms·

Game theory is a useful framework for this problem in the sense that almost any double-sided market can be trivially formulated into a game-theoretic framework.

Game theory is a useful framework for this problem in the sense that almost any double-sided market can be trivially formulated into a game-theoretic framework. But viewing college admissions as a Nash equilibrium doesn't meaningfully clarify the problem. That said, I generally agree with the article. America's elite private universities have almost always been about signalling over substance, an orientation that can be traced back to their origins as bastions of elite privilege. Our recent attempts at reform, via affirmative action and more recently, the SAT adversity score, have been nothing more than attempts to spread the benefits of signalling to new, heretofore underrepresented, groups. The real solution, of course, is to tear this reputation market down. We need to work to remove the signalling benefits of so-called "elite" institutions, and in doing so, remove their stranglehold on access to a number of prestigious jobs and career paths. How do we do this? I'm not sure, exactly. The radical solution is to nationalize all universities, redistribute their endowments more equitably, and enforce a singular admissions and educational process on all of them. This enforced uniformity would destroy "elite" signalling. There are incremental steps to this, though. Implement new rules to force colleges to expand their enrollment to maintain non-profit status (and thus retain untaxed earnings from their endowments). Pour more money in flagship public universities to create strong alternatives to private education (i.e. make a UC Berkeley for every state). And so on. Reduce the distinctiveness of the elite privates, and their value as signalling institutions decreases.

0815test 7y ago
"Tearing the reputation market down" is not generally a good solution, people want to acquire reputation for sensible reasons and tearing one market down just leads to it being replaced by other, generally suboptimal markets. What you actually want to do is (1) stop subsidizing reputational games heavily, so that agents who engage in them don't get to externalize their cost to third parties, and (2) try to outcompete the standard reputation game by signaling the same desirable qualities more cheaply. The latter is sometimes difficult to do in the case of education, because conformity is itself something that people might want to signal, and it's hard to outcompete prevailing standards while conforming to them. But providing alternatives is still valuable, because sooner or later you'll get a positive unraveling cascade where people realize that the advantages of conforming to the existing standard don't justify the cost, and it's better to switch to a cheaper alternative. (It's something that's mostly unpredictable however, since it works on the principle of a popularity contest where the prediction itself is what people are constantly optimizing for!)
- logicx24 7y ago
  What would (1) look like in the context of education? What exactly do you mean by externalities? Otherwise yes, I agree that the ideal solution would be to provide compelling alternatives at lower cost. The issue is, we've seen this fail already in education. MOOCs attempted to democratize elite education, but instead increased the entrenchment of those institutions. In software, bootcamps and the like have also failed to dislodge the prominence of signalling. Indeed, if there's anything the past decade has shown, it's the increased availability of information, and the increased democratization of resources, have only increased the value of signalling. The market itself has become so skewed, so incredibly inelastic (to cost in general), that competition is becoming nearly impossible.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    There is no one solution... I think that we need to start accepting that, and acknowledge that there are overlaps in terms of ability and the course one takes to learn and inject themselves into a profession. Like bootcamps... from my experience the best of the bootcamp grads will outperform and do better than the vast majority of developers from traditional computer science backgrounds for most work. The bottom of the bootcamps are worse than those from traditional education. Self-taught tend to be towards the top as well. The rest is a deck of cards and some roles lend themselves to those traditionally trained, or the few that go very far above and beyond what they have been required to do in terms of learning. This also overlaps with regards to natural aptitude as well. There are people that do not, and likely will never get it. There are those with personality issues that will take years to understand how to interact with others (if ever). It's a mixed bag. The "pre-interview homework" doesn't really help much. Depending on that process, as an interviewee it comes so early that you aren't even sure that you're interested enough in the company and have enough other places to talk to. It will depend. That said, it isn't that hard to compete. Show competence, drive and a desire to learn. If you are Junior level, work to level up, make something, throw it up on github and interact with a broader community. Read up on the things you want to learn and use them. Write about what you are learning, and get feedback. If you're mid level, get to know your design patterns better. Don't assume you should apply them everywhere, but be aware of them. If you're senior level, branch out and learn new things. Yeah, you've used C# and SQL Server the past decade, have you done .Net Core? Have you looked at other modern languages lately? Challenge yourself. Competing means dedicating time and effort, and it doesn't take too much. It does take more at the beginning of your career. I have been at this for almost 25 years now. I spend 2 hours a day on average looking at technical articles and commenting. I spent my recent vacation reading about Rust, usually do road trips. I am passionate about my own career, and still enjoy learning above anything. Above all else, be honest about what you know, and what you don't.
swivelmaster 7y ago
You're talking about changing the supply side of the equation, which isn't inherently a bad idea, but the demand side of the equation is driven by a job market that often doesn't have time to properly vet candidates and would RATHER use signals because they're faster. So you'd have to find a way not to eliminate the signaling, but rather to more closely align the signals with reality.
- logicx24 7y ago
  This works in some fields, like software, which are based on measurable skills that can be directly taught. And we see it already with bootcamps and MOOCs (though these will need reinterpretation for real success). However, in many other fields, like consulting, or investment banking, or law school admissions, there isn't a similar quality of measurability. Indeed, for many of these fields, the signalling is the end in and of itself, where the job itself doesn't require specific skills, but it's a benefit to the hiring institution to hire from signalling institutions). These sort of problems are uniquely resistant to market mechanisms and need top-down reform.
  - swivelmaster 7y ago
    I don't know about "the job itself doesn't require specific skills," I think it's more that the skills are "soft" and thus much harder to measure. A consultant's job often involves listening to a lot of people and collecting a lot of data and then synthesizing all of that into actionable recommendations... but then again, consultants are often hired just to confirm whatever a manager already believes, so their perceived utility isn't actually proportional to their ability. Yeah, these are tough problems.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    I'm not sure that this is true even in software. "Professional" skills, interactions, leadership and other skills can indeed be taught, but are difficult to actually test for. There are a lot of skills in software that are invaluable and come only with time, experience and self-reflection. Also, I find a significant divide in working with people who have come out of bootcamps, etc at a junior level. The divide is really down to those who did work outside/beyond their assigned work, and those that didn't. It's an indicator of passion and aptitude that isn't really testable because then that would become the new baseline. I'm not saying that reform isn't needed, I think there's a significant space for it. For that matter, changing perceptions of what higher education actually is and isn't good for would be a start. In my own experience, the top performers out of a vocational program or self-taught will outperform and do better than the vast majority of those traditionally educated. The rest will stack in the middle, and those that didn't do well in the vocational setting will be at the bottom. I think the start is to recognize that procedural differences can and do have overlapping outcomes, and to look for those secondary indicators and try to acknowledge them.
Kalium 7y ago
> This enforced uniformity would destroy "elite" signalling. It would definitely destroy the supply. What it wouldn't do is destroy the utility of elite signaling (humans love tribal reasoning, it's cognitively easy) and thus the desire for elite signaling would continue. Much like even in schools with a strict uniform dress code, you can still tell who has money and who doesn't. Removing the supply of something rarely eliminates its demand. Thus, removing the supply into the reputation market is unlikely to eliminate its demand. People will find another way to signal. Also, it might be considered that many states already have what could be considered excellent, high-quality, strong flagship public universities. Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Georgia all spring to mind as states with excellent public universities, and I know there are more. Some of them are larger than UC Berkeley.
danielscrubs 7y ago
One thing an elite school is signaling is that it’s at the very least not among the worst. I went to an elite school and the thing I’m most proud is that we learned knowledge that doesn’t decay as quickly (math, oh so much math). If I’d taken a less elite school I’d probably have some less than useful bazaar, ruby on rails, software architecture of the month thingy

0815test 7y ago

"Tearing the reputation market down" is not generally a good solution, people want to acquire reputation for sensible reasons and tearing one market down just leads to it being replaced by other, generally suboptimal markets. What you actually want to do is (1) stop subsidizing reputational games heavily, so that agents who engage in them don't get to externalize their cost to third parties, and (2) try to outcompete the standard reputation game by signaling the same desirable qualities more cheaply. The latter is sometimes difficult to do in the case of education, because conformity is itself something that people might want to signal, and it's hard to outcompete prevailing standards while conforming to them. But providing alternatives is still valuable, because sooner or later you'll get a positive unraveling cascade where people realize that the advantages of conforming to the existing standard don't justify the cost, and it's better to switch to a cheaper alternative. (It's something that's mostly unpredictable however, since it works on the principle of a popularity contest where the prediction itself is what people are constantly optimizing for!)

logicx24 7y ago
What would (1) look like in the context of education? What exactly do you mean by externalities? Otherwise yes, I agree that the ideal solution would be to provide compelling alternatives at lower cost. The issue is, we've seen this fail already in education. MOOCs attempted to democratize elite education, but instead increased the entrenchment of those institutions. In software, bootcamps and the like have also failed to dislodge the prominence of signalling. Indeed, if there's anything the past decade has shown, it's the increased availability of information, and the increased democratization of resources, have only increased the value of signalling. The market itself has become so skewed, so incredibly inelastic (to cost in general), that competition is becoming nearly impossible.
- tracker1 7y ago
  There is no one solution... I think that we need to start accepting that, and acknowledge that there are overlaps in terms of ability and the course one takes to learn and inject themselves into a profession. Like bootcamps... from my experience the best of the bootcamp grads will outperform and do better than the vast majority of developers from traditional computer science backgrounds for most work. The bottom of the bootcamps are worse than those from traditional education. Self-taught tend to be towards the top as well. The rest is a deck of cards and some roles lend themselves to those traditionally trained, or the few that go very far above and beyond what they have been required to do in terms of learning. This also overlaps with regards to natural aptitude as well. There are people that do not, and likely will never get it. There are those with personality issues that will take years to understand how to interact with others (if ever). It's a mixed bag. The "pre-interview homework" doesn't really help much. Depending on that process, as an interviewee it comes so early that you aren't even sure that you're interested enough in the company and have enough other places to talk to. It will depend. That said, it isn't that hard to compete. Show competence, drive and a desire to learn. If you are Junior level, work to level up, make something, throw it up on github and interact with a broader community. Read up on the things you want to learn and use them. Write about what you are learning, and get feedback. If you're mid level, get to know your design patterns better. Don't assume you should apply them everywhere, but be aware of them. If you're senior level, branch out and learn new things. Yeah, you've used C# and SQL Server the past decade, have you done .Net Core? Have you looked at other modern languages lately? Challenge yourself. Competing means dedicating time and effort, and it doesn't take too much. It does take more at the beginning of your career. I have been at this for almost 25 years now. I spend 2 hours a day on average looking at technical articles and commenting. I spent my recent vacation reading about Rust, usually do road trips. I am passionate about my own career, and still enjoy learning above anything. Above all else, be honest about what you know, and what you don't.

swivelmaster 7y ago

You're talking about changing the supply side of the equation, which isn't inherently a bad idea, but the demand side of the equation is driven by a job market that often doesn't have time to properly vet candidates and would RATHER use signals because they're faster. So you'd have to find a way not to eliminate the signaling, but rather to more closely align the signals with reality.

logicx24 7y ago
This works in some fields, like software, which are based on measurable skills that can be directly taught. And we see it already with bootcamps and MOOCs (though these will need reinterpretation for real success). However, in many other fields, like consulting, or investment banking, or law school admissions, there isn't a similar quality of measurability. Indeed, for many of these fields, the signalling is the end in and of itself, where the job itself doesn't require specific skills, but it's a benefit to the hiring institution to hire from signalling institutions). These sort of problems are uniquely resistant to market mechanisms and need top-down reform.
- swivelmaster 7y ago
  I don't know about "the job itself doesn't require specific skills," I think it's more that the skills are "soft" and thus much harder to measure. A consultant's job often involves listening to a lot of people and collecting a lot of data and then synthesizing all of that into actionable recommendations... but then again, consultants are often hired just to confirm whatever a manager already believes, so their perceived utility isn't actually proportional to their ability. Yeah, these are tough problems.
- tracker1 7y ago
  I'm not sure that this is true even in software. "Professional" skills, interactions, leadership and other skills can indeed be taught, but are difficult to actually test for. There are a lot of skills in software that are invaluable and come only with time, experience and self-reflection. Also, I find a significant divide in working with people who have come out of bootcamps, etc at a junior level. The divide is really down to those who did work outside/beyond their assigned work, and those that didn't. It's an indicator of passion and aptitude that isn't really testable because then that would become the new baseline. I'm not saying that reform isn't needed, I think there's a significant space for it. For that matter, changing perceptions of what higher education actually is and isn't good for would be a start. In my own experience, the top performers out of a vocational program or self-taught will outperform and do better than the vast majority of those traditionally educated. The rest will stack in the middle, and those that didn't do well in the vocational setting will be at the bottom. I think the start is to recognize that procedural differences can and do have overlapping outcomes, and to look for those secondary indicators and try to acknowledge them.

Kalium 7y ago

> This enforced uniformity would destroy "elite" signalling. It would definitely destroy the supply. What it wouldn't do is destroy the utility of elite signaling (humans love tribal reasoning, it's cognitively easy) and thus the desire for elite signaling would continue. Much like even in schools with a strict uniform dress code, you can still tell who has money and who doesn't. Removing the supply of something rarely eliminates its demand. Thus, removing the supply into the reputation market is unlikely to eliminate its demand. People will find another way to signal. Also, it might be considered that many states already have what could be considered excellent, high-quality, strong flagship public universities. Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Georgia all spring to mind as states with excellent public universities, and I know there are more. Some of them are larger than UC Berkeley.

danielscrubs 7y ago

One thing an elite school is signaling is that it’s at the very least not among the worst. I went to an elite school and the thing I’m most proud is that we learned knowledge that doesn’t decay as quickly (math, oh so much math). If I’d taken a less elite school I’d probably have some less than useful bazaar, ruby on rails, software architecture of the month thingy