3 ms·

> The problem with that lottery is that it still doesn’t solve the problem of artificial scarcity. This is assuming it's a problem that can be solved with simp

> The problem with that lottery is that it still doesn’t solve the problem of artificial scarcity. This is assuming it's a problem that can be solved with simple tweaks or "startup disruption". It's an issue very much related to conspicuous consumption as education >in the Ivy League/cohort< is now a luxury good. Modeling a "prestige" factor helps account for the inequality [0]. Freakonomics[1] just did an episode on this, but I've come across similar data points else where. It's a stamp of not just a good education, but a social credential implying you have connections or money. You can already get an equivalent education to one you might get at Harvard (or better in some majors) at many other public/private universities. The key here is the human connections you form, which go on to pay dividends later given the point above. MOOCs were the golden child a decade ago, and they are working to some extent, but they're not breaking the elite walled garden of premier higher education. [0] https://www.nber.org/papers/w29309 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29309 [1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-university-of-impossible-to-get-into/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-university-of-impossibl...

chrischen 4y ago
I’d imagine they work nicely for software engineering, but even then a lot of jobs out there are requiring degrees and might attribute too much ti the brand of college. Some sort of objective skill evaluation that is also officially recognized must be implemented in addition to actual knowledge acquisition. As I understand it if you are a doctor and capable in every way if you don’t have the degrees you can’t even be tested?
- pas 4y ago
  > but even then a lot of jobs out there are requiring degrees and ... yes, and that's basically the crux of the problem. this is a social coordination problem, not a problem of education. the trivial solution is to "outlaw" this by blinding the prestige credentials of the candidate (so only show a standardized thing like 3 year applied maths bsc) and only ask about previous experience (2 years working as data scientist) or whatever "obviously" people will try to game this (though other universities can then copy what comes out of the fancy universities) of course this could quickly lead to the rise of alternative prestige/reputation networks, but if the whole job application is standardized (so it becomes very hard to identify the candidate) then at least it gives a chance for folks to get in the door. then only the usual biases remain, and the usual unfair questions (and typically the most disadvantaged candidates have the least chance to know about what kind of questions are discriminatory, and even if they know most of the time they don't have the time/energy to do anything about it)

chrischen 4y ago

I’d imagine they work nicely for software engineering, but even then a lot of jobs out there are requiring degrees and might attribute too much ti the brand of college. Some sort of objective skill evaluation that is also officially recognized must be implemented in addition to actual knowledge acquisition. As I understand it if you are a doctor and capable in every way if you don’t have the degrees you can’t even be tested?

pas 4y ago
> but even then a lot of jobs out there are requiring degrees and ... yes, and that's basically the crux of the problem. this is a social coordination problem, not a problem of education. the trivial solution is to "outlaw" this by blinding the prestige credentials of the candidate (so only show a standardized thing like 3 year applied maths bsc) and only ask about previous experience (2 years working as data scientist) or whatever "obviously" people will try to game this (though other universities can then copy what comes out of the fancy universities) of course this could quickly lead to the rise of alternative prestige/reputation networks, but if the whole job application is standardized (so it becomes very hard to identify the candidate) then at least it gives a chance for folks to get in the door. then only the usual biases remain, and the usual unfair questions (and typically the most disadvantaged candidates have the least chance to know about what kind of questions are discriminatory, and even if they know most of the time they don't have the time/energy to do anything about it)