3 ms·

> Conformists do what they’re told and don’t look for ways to skirt the rules. They’re more likely to assimilate into corporate culture and are easier to monito

by wisty 3y ago

> Conformists do what they’re told and don’t look for ways to skirt the rules. They’re more likely to assimilate into corporate culture and are easier to monitor, motivate, and predict in a wide variety of circumstances. When it comes right down to it, you can probably pay them less for doing the same amount of work. > But while Caplanites readily assert this point to explain why the signal from education can’t easily be replaced by market alternatives, they conspicuously neglect the challenge it poses to their broader assault on schooling’s societal worth: so long as otherwise useless and arbitrary curricula succeed at teaching students to conform, they still contribute to human capital formation. A counter argument - schools do not teach students to play by the rules (even if they want to), they teach students how to cheat and not get caught. A business doesn't want employees who can hit KPIs by gaming the system, a business wants employees who will earnestly do their jobs in a way that improves their numbers (and unless you're in sales, there's very rarely a good KPI). The anti-Caplan article then explains that cheating can be rampant. I don't think this is the type of conformity most businesses want (even if they might end up rewarding it). I agree with the argument against Fadeout though - students might forget everything they learnt at college because they never really need it, but retain what they learnt in high school because they needed to use it in college. There could be an argument to make college shorter. Would a 2 year degree be any worse than a 4 year degree, assuming the students are aiming for a career where don't need any of the more specialised skills a professional degree would require? Australia does fine with 3 year degrees, and I don't think anyone would advocate for 5 year generalist degrees (with a straight face) so what's so magic about 4 year degrees?

tnecniv 3y ago
Also, regarding conformism, an undergraduate degree is about learning the basics of a field. Undergraduate classes are not the cutting edge of thought in the area by and large. It’s similar to learning to play an instrument or paint. The masters know how to break the rules because they know all the rules and know when and how it is interesting to break them. I personally can’t just put three tones on a canvas and make it like a Rothko or play with dissonance like Ornette Coleman. They can experiment successfully because they know how to very intentionally break a rule.
taeric 3y ago
To quote Hunter S Thompson, "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." That said, I don't get the argument against fadeout. You lose what you don't use. Pretty much period. Nobody is shocked that they have a hard time jumping back into anything physical after a while; why would mental be any different? There is a good section in Peak that goes over testing the brain sizes of people testing to be cab drivers in London. Those that pass the test to get the job have measurably bigger parts of the brain that are responsible for navigation. Those that have retired have similarly enlarged sections of their brain, if not as large. This seems to be physical evidence of fadeout in our brains.
eszed 3y ago
I've studied (and taught undergraduates) in Britain, and their three year degrees are tightly focused on students' courses of study. They don't (by and large) go in for the General Education courses that take up so much of US college students' time. The advantage is that their university degree programmes go into much more depth, in a much shorter time. On the other hand, university-bound students there do an extra year of (very academically-focused) secondary school, so they arrive more prepared for tertiary education than US students (by and large) are. I prefer the British system, too, but getting to it in the US would require changing more than just US colleges' time-tables or courses of study.

by wisty 3y ago

tnecniv 3y ago

Also, regarding conformism, an undergraduate degree is about learning the basics of a field. Undergraduate classes are not the cutting edge of thought in the area by and large. It’s similar to learning to play an instrument or paint. The masters know how to break the rules because they know all the rules and know when and how it is interesting to break them. I personally can’t just put three tones on a canvas and make it like a Rothko or play with dissonance like Ornette Coleman. They can experiment successfully because they know how to very intentionally break a rule.

taeric 3y ago

To quote Hunter S Thompson, "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." That said, I don't get the argument against fadeout. You lose what you don't use. Pretty much period. Nobody is shocked that they have a hard time jumping back into anything physical after a while; why would mental be any different? There is a good section in Peak that goes over testing the brain sizes of people testing to be cab drivers in London. Those that pass the test to get the job have measurably bigger parts of the brain that are responsible for navigation. Those that have retired have similarly enlarged sections of their brain, if not as large. This seems to be physical evidence of fadeout in our brains.

eszed 3y ago

I've studied (and taught undergraduates) in Britain, and their three year degrees are tightly focused on students' courses of study. They don't (by and large) go in for the General Education courses that take up so much of US college students' time. The advantage is that their university degree programmes go into much more depth, in a much shorter time. On the other hand, university-bound students there do an extra year of (very academically-focused) secondary school, so they arrive more prepared for tertiary education than US students (by and large) are. I prefer the British system, too, but getting to it in the US would require changing more than just US colleges' time-tables or courses of study.