4 ms·

There’s a great quote from a recent TV show that summarizes the putative value of a college degree: The whole point of a college degree is to show a potential

by fwlr 4y ago

There’s a great quote from a recent TV show that summarizes the putative value of a college degree: The whole point of a college degree is to show a potential employer that you showed up someplace four years in a row, completed a series of tasks reasonably well, and on time. So if he hires you, there’s a semi-decent chance that you’ll show up there every day and not fuck his business up. (Delivered by Sylvester Stallone! https://youtube.com/shorts/SUlrllck1Po https://youtube.com/shorts/SUlrllck1Po) Arguably the value proposition of Stanford and other colleges in the same situation has changed. Rather than show ability to complete reasonably complex tasks on time, a Stanford degree’s real value now is that it shows the bearer is capable of safely navigating the diversity/equality/inclusion bureaucracy. From this perspective, the fact that Stanford has enough administrators to give each one a full-time salaried job harassing one individual student each and still have staff left over to run classes is actually strengthening their value. Anyone who graduates from Stanford has survived a bureaucratic gauntlet infinitely more insane and Kafka-esque than whatever your DEI department can cook up. Hire a Stanford graduate and you can be sure they won’t bring shame on your company with an insensitive word or sexually suggestive action. Ironically, perhaps these colleges are preparing students for the workplace more effectively than they have in decades.

lelanthran 4y ago
> The whole point of a humanities college degree is to show a potential employer that you showed up someplace four years in a row, completed a series of tasks reasonably well, and on time. Lets be honest here, some degrees show proficiency in some field. Other degrees, which are far more popular, show that you showed up on time, four years in a row. The value an EE graduate or an MD graduate has is not the same as the value of someone who could have coasted through university with minimal effort.
- version_five 4y ago
  I think everyone agrees that the skillset will differ depending on the degree and the university. The point was that within the area of your degree, university also signals conformity.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  I think for non-work-qualifying degrees, it's marginal. Obviously a doctor who is on the wards during his training needs that training. Or a lawyer who needs to pass exams to even call himself that. I did an engineering degree. What am I competent at, that I actually learned at university? I don't think there's really anything. The whole thing was just a bunch of different introductions to various topics. Could I work in cryptography? Well, I did a course on RSA and that kind of thing, but I'm fairly sure I couldn't just do a job like that. Could I build electronics? Most of my higher level courses were EE courses, and I built a working radio in the first year, but I couldn't just walk into an EE job either. What about civil? I learned a few things about structures but it's not like I could just design a building. They're all just things that show that you're capable of learning stuff in some area, and you have some degree of interest. But none of them confers competence. This is what I call the miracle of graduation. People think that somehow you learned the things you need for a job in college. But logically it's impossible. When you're on your first job, you're learning that job 40-80 hours a week, and you're interacting with professionals in the field, learning valuable meta-competencies. At uni you split your 40 hours among dozens of topics and you're taking an academic view, not a professional one. Many of your hours are also spent learning how to pass exams, rather than anything useful.
  - __lbracket__ 4y ago
    I struggle with this issue. I have a MSEE and PhD (EE) (from Stanford to boot !) and I'm not sure if I learned anything value creating in my school years. At least at the graduate level, I think a lot depends on your choices of courses. I biased toward Electromagnetism, and learned solution of PDEs. It taught me computational PDEs and building intuition for physical modeling of real world. It is certainly helping me in my "corporate" job. Yet I don't have a good answer when my dad asks 'what value are you creating'. My dad is also an EE and he has salt-of-the-earth understanding of systems, motors, 3-phase home wiring etc etc. He can fix those things in a crunch. I cant. Did Stanford teach me anything useful? I honestly don't know.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > I think for non-work-qualifying degrees, it's marginal. Obviously a doctor who is on the wards during his training needs that training. Or a lawyer who needs to pass exams to even call himself that. My point is not that a degree makes you work-ready. It's that "it shows you can shop up, on time and perform reasonably" is too incorrect to be a useful argument. All degrees shows that, but some only show that while others show that the graduate in that specific degree will perform better than others (or graduates of other degrees). It's a popular idea that a degree only shows commitment, but it's a wrong idea. Only humanities degrees show just commitment. Financial, Medical, Engineering and Law degrees show commitment as well as indicate a level of willingness to engage with more difficult problems.
ainiriand 4y ago
A medical doctor or an architect would disagree with that statement.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fwlr 4y ago
  Also true of someone who graduated from law. (It is interesting to note that all three - law, medicine, and architecture - have licensing requirements involving an imposing exam separate to the degree.) My point is not to agree completely with Stallone’s quote, but rather to use it to represent the commonly-held belief that, while the stated value of a college degree is the information learned, the real value is proof of work ethic. I introduced that belief so that I could put forward my contention, that a third value of college degrees is emerging: proficiency at navigating modern DEI bureaucracy. And to be clear, I believe it’s a valuable proficiency to have! For many companies, hiring a closet racist is undoubtedly more dangerous than hiring a lazy oaf.
  - ainiriand 4y ago
    Very interesting! Thank you for the insight.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Would that be before or after they made the STEP 1 pass fail?

by fwlr 4y ago

lelanthran 4y ago

> The whole point of a humanities college degree is to show a potential employer that you showed up someplace four years in a row, completed a series of tasks reasonably well, and on time. Lets be honest here, some degrees show proficiency in some field. Other degrees, which are far more popular, show that you showed up on time, four years in a row. The value an EE graduate or an MD graduate has is not the same as the value of someone who could have coasted through university with minimal effort.

version_five 4y ago
I think everyone agrees that the skillset will differ depending on the degree and the university. The point was that within the area of your degree, university also signals conformity.
lordnacho 4y ago
I think for non-work-qualifying degrees, it's marginal. Obviously a doctor who is on the wards during his training needs that training. Or a lawyer who needs to pass exams to even call himself that. I did an engineering degree. What am I competent at, that I actually learned at university? I don't think there's really anything. The whole thing was just a bunch of different introductions to various topics. Could I work in cryptography? Well, I did a course on RSA and that kind of thing, but I'm fairly sure I couldn't just do a job like that. Could I build electronics? Most of my higher level courses were EE courses, and I built a working radio in the first year, but I couldn't just walk into an EE job either. What about civil? I learned a few things about structures but it's not like I could just design a building. They're all just things that show that you're capable of learning stuff in some area, and you have some degree of interest. But none of them confers competence. This is what I call the miracle of graduation. People think that somehow you learned the things you need for a job in college. But logically it's impossible. When you're on your first job, you're learning that job 40-80 hours a week, and you're interacting with professionals in the field, learning valuable meta-competencies. At uni you split your 40 hours among dozens of topics and you're taking an academic view, not a professional one. Many of your hours are also spent learning how to pass exams, rather than anything useful.
- __lbracket__ 4y ago
  I struggle with this issue. I have a MSEE and PhD (EE) (from Stanford to boot !) and I'm not sure if I learned anything value creating in my school years. At least at the graduate level, I think a lot depends on your choices of courses. I biased toward Electromagnetism, and learned solution of PDEs. It taught me computational PDEs and building intuition for physical modeling of real world. It is certainly helping me in my "corporate" job. Yet I don't have a good answer when my dad asks 'what value are you creating'. My dad is also an EE and he has salt-of-the-earth understanding of systems, motors, 3-phase home wiring etc etc. He can fix those things in a crunch. I cant. Did Stanford teach me anything useful? I honestly don't know.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I think for non-work-qualifying degrees, it's marginal. Obviously a doctor who is on the wards during his training needs that training. Or a lawyer who needs to pass exams to even call himself that. My point is not that a degree makes you work-ready. It's that "it shows you can shop up, on time and perform reasonably" is too incorrect to be a useful argument. All degrees shows that, but some only show that while others show that the graduate in that specific degree will perform better than others (or graduates of other degrees). It's a popular idea that a degree only shows commitment, but it's a wrong idea. Only humanities degrees show just commitment. Financial, Medical, Engineering and Law degrees show commitment as well as indicate a level of willingness to engage with more difficult problems.

ainiriand 4y ago

A medical doctor or an architect would disagree with that statement.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fwlr 4y ago
Also true of someone who graduated from law. (It is interesting to note that all three - law, medicine, and architecture - have licensing requirements involving an imposing exam separate to the degree.) My point is not to agree completely with Stallone’s quote, but rather to use it to represent the commonly-held belief that, while the stated value of a college degree is the information learned, the real value is proof of work ethic. I introduced that belief so that I could put forward my contention, that a third value of college degrees is emerging: proficiency at navigating modern DEI bureaucracy. And to be clear, I believe it’s a valuable proficiency to have! For many companies, hiring a closet racist is undoubtedly more dangerous than hiring a lazy oaf.
- ainiriand 4y ago
  Very interesting! Thank you for the insight.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Would that be before or after they made the STEP 1 pass fail?