4 ms·
> rich applicants can also pay to boost whatever other signal This applies to all signals. "It will be gamed. No exceptions." If you care about being equitabl
by api 3y ago
> rich applicants can also pay to boost whatever other signal
This applies to all signals. "It will be gamed. No exceptions."
If you care about being equitable, there is no way to fix the elite university system. There are by definition only a few elite universities and they can only admit a small fraction of the population. Even if it were a lottery it'd still exclude the vast majority of people.
I feel like a lot of the over-the-top "wokeness" coming out of places like Yale is a case of "they doth protest too much." The vanguard institutions of an inherently discriminatory elitist system of conferred nobility are trying to deflect from this by blathering about diversity. The nobles are lecturing us about how woke they are in the hope of distracting us from the fact that we are not and probably never can be nobility.
The only real solution is to make that system obsolete. A person should be hired on the basis of their ability to do the job well. Nothing else. No degrees. No name dropping. No elitism based on what region of the country you're from or where you went to school. Just ability.
Colleges would only be able to justify their existence (and cost) by arguing that they are good places to learn and hone one's abilities. This would not only be more equitable but might allow people to get into the workforce without a writ of indenture in the form of a giant student loan to repay.
- hgsgm 3y agoReasonable standards + lottery selections is far less gameable. And it has the right incentives, as it pressures rich folks to develop more high-quality universities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- candiodari 3y agoThe problem is you cannot trust those who run the lottery, or the exams. People will cheat to get in, and they can be quite creative: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago> A person should be hired on the basis of their ability to do the job well. And how do you do that? The reason education is considered is because it's a signal of who can do the job well.
- api 3y agoI can talk to someone for 20 minutes and know if they can be a good engineer on our projects. I don't need secondary signals. I'm willing to bet that anyone who knows any area well can do the same thing. A construction worker can probably talk to someone for 20 minutes and tell if they can work on a construction site. It does mean that bureaucrats who don't actually know an area can't hire people for that area, but they've never been good at that. For qualified interviewers secondary signals are only useful at the initial filtering stage of deciding who to interview. For that I've found that some mix of (has gone to any college | has worked in the field | has side projects or hobby projects in the field) combined with just describing the job and asking them if they could do it is good enough. Then a quick 20 minute call determines if they're worth talking to more. Then a longer call with some questions and involving other team members, then maybe a test project and/or reference checks if possible.
- rgbgraph 3y agoThat would require for you to be a well-rounded person that hasn’t optimized for only one facet of the job (e.g. money, technical skill, etc.) — at that point might as well be an entrepreneur. It would also require that your interviewees are not comprised of psychos willing to take whatever measure necessary to get what they want (i.e. play the game/talk the talk) — which usually does not happen when a lot of money or power is being offered.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoMaybe we can ask that employers make standardized tests for a proper can kicked down the road situation?
- tdba 3y ago