5 ms·

Getting a job as a mid-level manager in government service is very difficult without a degree, unless you are old enough to grandfather in when things were diff

Getting a job as a mid-level manager in government service is very difficult without a degree, unless you are old enough to grandfather in when things were different. And even if you do get a job, there will be a noticeable level of weirdness around you because you didn't finish college. Note that you don't have to go to a particularly good school -- it is government service, after all. I think a similar thing is true -- I would be interested in knowing how many people at supervisor or above at, say, Netflix (or an oil company) don't have a degree? I don't know... hopefully other people can share anecdotal evidence ;)

tptacek 15y ago
One tricky thing about this is that demographically, most people that end up in "white collar" jobs do get degrees. But I think that's post-hoc evidence for the implied requirement of a degree. Those same people might have done just as well (or even better, considering the 4 years opportunity cost of a degree) without college.
- forkandwait 15y ago
  I don't think you have any real evidence for whether the association of white-collar job and degree is post-hoc or not? Do you? Without evidence, it's kind of a cheap shot.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I don't think we need to cite sources to suggest that white collar jobs tend to be filled by people above the socioeconomic median, or the fact that the same demographic cohort overwhelmingly tends to go to college. The middle class goes to university (a) because it's a default, (b) because it's part of the middle class lifestyle, and (c) because it's perceived as necessary for a career. Only 1/3rd of those reasons are about credentials.† Stipulating the fact that jobs are just statistically going to be filled by people who automatically got degrees, I don't think it's a stretch (or a cheap shot) to suggest that the relationship between jobs and school is tenuous. Moreover, given the fact that white collar jobs in large companies tend to be managed conservatively, and the fact that people without degrees are outliers (because almost every applicant for any job went to college by default), some of the "credentialing effect" of a degree is actually just an observational bias. † Note also the preponderance of college attendees who attain degrees that are almost objectively without credentialing merit, such as the liberal arts.†† †† "Without credentialing merit" being intended as an objective statement and not as an argument that people shouldn't get liberal arts degrees; I think most degrees are without credentialing merit.
    - forkandwait 15y ago
      Let's look at this as a logic problem. You say college has no causal effect, I say college has a causal effect (granting that we aren't talking about credentialing degrees, blah, blah). The best you have done is destroy my argument in favor of causation; however, this doesn't imply that you are correct for NO causation, just that my argument doesn't work (maybe correct). To prove no causation you would have to evaluate all possible arguments for it, and show them all to be wrong. (good luck) However, I do have partial evidence for causality based on the association between college and white collar jobs. I am basing this on the "warrant" that P(causation| association) >= P(causation) -- if there is association, the likelihood of causation is higher or the same. So how about this: neither of us can say for sure whether college helps, but I have a little bit of faulty evidence and you have no evidence whatsoever. We are in the same situation as most social scientists -- the evidence for anything really sucks, and is nowhere like the evidence for hard science propositions. However, very important policy decisions have to be made based on this faulty evidence. What most people do is pretend be sure and so guarantee they act foolishly.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I think you're going through a lot of trouble to formalize an argument I'm not even contesting. I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere.
        forkandwait 15y ago
        >I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere. Umm, wrong. I am arguing with the "minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions". I have made that clear, by statements to the effect of "granting the professions are a different case." I am saying -- I have limited evidence for causality in the effect of a degree (outside the professions), and you have no evidence for the absence of causality . It's all good though...

tptacek 15y ago

One tricky thing about this is that demographically, most people that end up in "white collar" jobs do get degrees. But I think that's post-hoc evidence for the implied requirement of a degree. Those same people might have done just as well (or even better, considering the 4 years opportunity cost of a degree) without college.

forkandwait 15y ago
I don't think you have any real evidence for whether the association of white-collar job and degree is post-hoc or not? Do you? Without evidence, it's kind of a cheap shot.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't think we need to cite sources to suggest that white collar jobs tend to be filled by people above the socioeconomic median, or the fact that the same demographic cohort overwhelmingly tends to go to college. The middle class goes to university (a) because it's a default, (b) because it's part of the middle class lifestyle, and (c) because it's perceived as necessary for a career. Only 1/3rd of those reasons are about credentials.† Stipulating the fact that jobs are just statistically going to be filled by people who automatically got degrees, I don't think it's a stretch (or a cheap shot) to suggest that the relationship between jobs and school is tenuous. Moreover, given the fact that white collar jobs in large companies tend to be managed conservatively, and the fact that people without degrees are outliers (because almost every applicant for any job went to college by default), some of the "credentialing effect" of a degree is actually just an observational bias. † Note also the preponderance of college attendees who attain degrees that are almost objectively without credentialing merit, such as the liberal arts.†† †† "Without credentialing merit" being intended as an objective statement and not as an argument that people shouldn't get liberal arts degrees; I think most degrees are without credentialing merit.
  - forkandwait 15y ago
    Let's look at this as a logic problem. You say college has no causal effect, I say college has a causal effect (granting that we aren't talking about credentialing degrees, blah, blah). The best you have done is destroy my argument in favor of causation; however, this doesn't imply that you are correct for NO causation, just that my argument doesn't work (maybe correct). To prove no causation you would have to evaluate all possible arguments for it, and show them all to be wrong. (good luck) However, I do have partial evidence for causality based on the association between college and white collar jobs. I am basing this on the "warrant" that P(causation| association) >= P(causation) -- if there is association, the likelihood of causation is higher or the same. So how about this: neither of us can say for sure whether college helps, but I have a little bit of faulty evidence and you have no evidence whatsoever. We are in the same situation as most social scientists -- the evidence for anything really sucks, and is nowhere like the evidence for hard science propositions. However, very important policy decisions have to be made based on this faulty evidence. What most people do is pretend be sure and so guarantee they act foolishly.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I think you're going through a lot of trouble to formalize an argument I'm not even contesting. I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere.
      - forkandwait 15y ago
        >I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere. Umm, wrong. I am arguing with the "minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions". I have made that clear, by statements to the effect of "granting the professions are a different case." I am saying -- I have limited evidence for causality in the effect of a degree (outside the professions), and you have no evidence for the absence of causality . It's all good though...