6 ms·

Do you have any evidence for this theory that credentials are just for show and misdirection? For example hedge funds trying to fall back on the credentials of

Do you have any evidence for this theory that credentials are just for show and misdirection? For example hedge funds trying to fall back on the credentials of their employees in the event of failure?

nowherebeen 4y ago
Why would he/she need evidence? It's an observation which you may disagree with. Asking him/her to provide evidence is just silly. He/she is not here to prove anything to you.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  This comment is silly. It's not an observation, it's an assertion. If it was an observation it would contain evidence. He/she is here to have a discussion, presumably.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    No, the parent comment is spot-on. The idea that observations “contain evidence” is an idea that I’m unfamiliar with. I’m not sure what point you’re making about observations or assertions, or how the distinction between the terms is germane (not talking about the distinction between the concepts). Asking for evidence is confrontational and a bit gauche. Better to ask someone to elaborate, or ask them what the reasoning is. That’s a good way to continue the discussion because it doesn’t frame the discussion as an argument.
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      Happy to clarify. If I say "I remember when Craptastic Hedge Fund failed and used their traders credentials to distract from their incompetent trades" (LTCM might fit the bill here) that would be an observation. An observation is evidence. If I just say, "Hedge Funds use credentials to hide their incompetent trades" that's an assertion. It doesn't contain any evidence, I'm just stating something I believe to be true. It's germane because the OP (and you) seem to think it's inappropriate to ask if you have any examples (maybe "example" would have been less "gauche" than "evidence") It's not really important, you've clarified, and even added in some advice on manners.
      - klodolph 4y ago
        Oh, I definitely didn’t think that was the kind of response you were looking for.
klodolph 4y ago
1. Look at the rate at which hedge funds hire people from ivy-league schools, compared to the rate at which other businesses hire from ivy-league schools. What explanations do we have for these different rates? (There’s a long discussion here which I’m omitting. There’s more than one explanation, but the basic hypothesis is that hedge funds value ivy-league credentials more than other industries, because ivy-league credentials are more valuable to hedge funds, and if they were just after skills, they would probably make different hiring decisions.) 2. Look at what happens when a hedge fund fails. What kind of business decisions are scrutinized (and which are not)? How are decisions justified? Are those justifications founded? (Another long discussion which I’m omitting. The basic theory is that you need to CYA for the inevitable failures. If you CYA and then the fund fails, investors may give you another shot. If you don’t CYA, you get replaced.) I only save citations about a subject if I’m writing an article. If I were writing an article, I would post from my other account.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  I didn't mean citations so much as examples, since I assumed you had observed this in the real world to form your opinion. I'm not sure I agree with 1, but appreciate the clarification regardless.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- paulpauper 4y ago
  Hiring from Ivy League or Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Mud, etc. means you are at least guaranteed the top 1% of IQ. It means you are getting someone who probably posses a combination of good analytical skills and competitiveness.
  - dralley 4y ago
    Lol. I admire your faith in the system. 36% of Harvard students come from legacy admissions programs, their admission has less to do with their personal merit than their last name. Other Ivy leagues aren't far behind. A non-zero part of the product these schools sell is the ability to make friends with rich and powerful people. It's not the whole story, I'm not saying they're not good schools, but your average student isn't going to be that much smarter than your average well regarded public school, just a lot more wealthy.

nowherebeen 4y ago

Why would he/she need evidence? It's an observation which you may disagree with. Asking him/her to provide evidence is just silly. He/she is not here to prove anything to you.

kareemsabri 4y ago
This comment is silly. It's not an observation, it's an assertion. If it was an observation it would contain evidence. He/she is here to have a discussion, presumably.
- klodolph 4y ago
  No, the parent comment is spot-on. The idea that observations “contain evidence” is an idea that I’m unfamiliar with. I’m not sure what point you’re making about observations or assertions, or how the distinction between the terms is germane (not talking about the distinction between the concepts). Asking for evidence is confrontational and a bit gauche. Better to ask someone to elaborate, or ask them what the reasoning is. That’s a good way to continue the discussion because it doesn’t frame the discussion as an argument.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    Happy to clarify. If I say "I remember when Craptastic Hedge Fund failed and used their traders credentials to distract from their incompetent trades" (LTCM might fit the bill here) that would be an observation. An observation is evidence. If I just say, "Hedge Funds use credentials to hide their incompetent trades" that's an assertion. It doesn't contain any evidence, I'm just stating something I believe to be true. It's germane because the OP (and you) seem to think it's inappropriate to ask if you have any examples (maybe "example" would have been less "gauche" than "evidence") It's not really important, you've clarified, and even added in some advice on manners.
    - klodolph 4y ago
      Oh, I definitely didn’t think that was the kind of response you were looking for.

klodolph 4y ago

1. Look at the rate at which hedge funds hire people from ivy-league schools, compared to the rate at which other businesses hire from ivy-league schools. What explanations do we have for these different rates? (There’s a long discussion here which I’m omitting. There’s more than one explanation, but the basic hypothesis is that hedge funds value ivy-league credentials more than other industries, because ivy-league credentials are more valuable to hedge funds, and if they were just after skills, they would probably make different hiring decisions.) 2. Look at what happens when a hedge fund fails. What kind of business decisions are scrutinized (and which are not)? How are decisions justified? Are those justifications founded? (Another long discussion which I’m omitting. The basic theory is that you need to CYA for the inevitable failures. If you CYA and then the fund fails, investors may give you another shot. If you don’t CYA, you get replaced.) I only save citations about a subject if I’m writing an article. If I were writing an article, I would post from my other account.

kareemsabri 4y ago
I didn't mean citations so much as examples, since I assumed you had observed this in the real world to form your opinion. I'm not sure I agree with 1, but appreciate the clarification regardless.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 4y ago
Hiring from Ivy League or Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Mud, etc. means you are at least guaranteed the top 1% of IQ. It means you are getting someone who probably posses a combination of good analytical skills and competitiveness.
- dralley 4y ago
  Lol. I admire your faith in the system. 36% of Harvard students come from legacy admissions programs, their admission has less to do with their personal merit than their last name. Other Ivy leagues aren't far behind. A non-zero part of the product these schools sell is the ability to make friends with rich and powerful people. It's not the whole story, I'm not saying they're not good schools, but your average student isn't going to be that much smarter than your average well regarded public school, just a lot more wealthy.