4 ms·
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 (thou
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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.