4 ms·

Starting college and not completing it is a mixed signal as compared to never starting. If you allowed me 1000s of trials and I could wager on each of them, I'

Starting college and not completing it is a mixed signal as compared to never starting. If you allowed me 1000s of trials and I could wager on each of them, I'd wager that the SAT scores of those who started were higher than the SAT scores of those who never started. In that regard, being accepted to and starting college is a positive signal. At the same time, someone who started and dropped out might be seen as a signal that they could not conform to and complete a structured program. Or maybe they couldn't hack the collegiate level work after coasting through primary and secondary education. In that regard, someone who never attended college but taught themself programming (at least enough to pass the tech screen on 'all else equal' footing with degreed candidates) might be a better bet than someone who dropped out after two years in a comp sci program and screened the same.

neilv 3y ago
> If you allowed me 1000s of trials and I could wager on each of them, I'd wager that the SAT scores of those who started were higher than the SAT scores of those who never started. In that regard, being accepted to and starting college is a positive signal. If theory behind your wagers was correct, and if you're optimizing for SAT scores.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Underlying this proposition is that I'm optimizing for* something closer to what IQ (and SAT) measures. * "optimizing for" meaning "I'd prefer a higher score over a lower one, all else equal".
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    But IQ is completely useless as a measure. I've met people with really high IQ that were unable to do 1st year university math, and after a number of years dropped out of engineering. And yet their IQ tests were amazing…
    - al_borland 3y ago
      I dropped out of engineering after my first year because of the math. My high school had an experimental math program that was designed for people who wouldn’t need higher level math, which kind of screwed me. I was generally good at math and tests, so I placed into a higher level course than high school prepared me for. Because I did so well on the test, they wouldn’t allow me to take a lower level class. I tried. On the first day the teacher handed me a letter telling me I was departmentally dropped. This didn’t lead me to fully dropping out of school. I pivoted over to CIS, graduated, and worked my way up to a principal software engineer. Did these people you’re talking about totally quit, or did they find a solution to the problem? Employers are going to tend to like those who find alternative solutions. IQ isn’t useless, it’s just not the only measure that matters. Conscientiousness, for example, probably played a role in those who quit or not.
lapcat 3y ago
> Or maybe they couldn't hack the collegiate level work after coasting through primary and secondary education. Or maybe at 20 years old they didn't yet know what they wanted to do with the rest of their life but had been pushed into college anyway by overzealous parents and teachers.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  That's certainly possible. If an infallible oracle told you that was the case and you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard, would you hire the college graduate or the candidate who got railroaded into attending a bit of college and then dropped out? I think the tie goes to the college graduate for over half of the hiring managers, and I don't think that's crazy at all.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard That's different from the original quote, which was simply: > If there are two candidates — one with a degree, one without, “to many hiring managers, it will feel risky,” he said. But your question is interesting. Have you considered that if it's possible for a dropout to performally equally to a degree holder in every perceivable respect, it raises doubts about the value of a degree? Suppose that you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard and also both had degrees, indeed from the same institution. Then how would you choose? By height? Age? Gender? Physical attractiveness?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      If you have two indistinguishable candidates on relevant dimensions who both passed the interview bar and are the best two candidates you have for one position, literally just flip a coin, hire the winner, and move on.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > If you have two indistinguishable candidates on relevant dimensions who both passed the interview bar and are the best two candidates you have for one position, literally just flip a coin, hire the winner, and move on. Agreed. Now explain how having completed a degree is a "relevant dimension", unlike height, age, etc. You ignored my first question: "Have you considered that if it's possible for a dropout to performally equally to a degree holder in every perceivable respect, it raises doubts about the value of a degree?" My second question was actually intended to highlight the issue. What you appear to be doing with "I have evidence that the person with a degree can follow rules/policies and track towards a long-term goal with success" is reaching for one arbitrary personal characteristic and inventing an idiosyncratic, non-scientific psychological theory in order to justify discrimination. Others do the same thing with age and gender, for example (younger people and men are just better at programming, they say). You don't know the life story of these people, and there are any number of reasons for someone not completing a degree: monetary problems, family problems, a major illness or injury, natural disaster, etc. Moreover, if you select just based on degree completion, you give job candidates no opportunity to show evidence that they "can follow rules/policies and track towards a long-term goal with success" in ways other than competing a degree. It's simply a bias toward degree holders. By your own admission, you're not using the degree as evidence of job-relevant skills but rather as a psychological, "life story" factor.

neilv 3y ago

> If you allowed me 1000s of trials and I could wager on each of them, I'd wager that the SAT scores of those who started were higher than the SAT scores of those who never started. In that regard, being accepted to and starting college is a positive signal. If theory behind your wagers was correct, and if you're optimizing for SAT scores.

sokoloff 3y ago
Underlying this proposition is that I'm optimizing for* something closer to what IQ (and SAT) measures. * "optimizing for" meaning "I'd prefer a higher score over a lower one, all else equal".
- LtWorf 3y ago
  But IQ is completely useless as a measure. I've met people with really high IQ that were unable to do 1st year university math, and after a number of years dropped out of engineering. And yet their IQ tests were amazing…
  - al_borland 3y ago
    I dropped out of engineering after my first year because of the math. My high school had an experimental math program that was designed for people who wouldn’t need higher level math, which kind of screwed me. I was generally good at math and tests, so I placed into a higher level course than high school prepared me for. Because I did so well on the test, they wouldn’t allow me to take a lower level class. I tried. On the first day the teacher handed me a letter telling me I was departmentally dropped. This didn’t lead me to fully dropping out of school. I pivoted over to CIS, graduated, and worked my way up to a principal software engineer. Did these people you’re talking about totally quit, or did they find a solution to the problem? Employers are going to tend to like those who find alternative solutions. IQ isn’t useless, it’s just not the only measure that matters. Conscientiousness, for example, probably played a role in those who quit or not.

lapcat 3y ago

> Or maybe they couldn't hack the collegiate level work after coasting through primary and secondary education. Or maybe at 20 years old they didn't yet know what they wanted to do with the rest of their life but had been pushed into college anyway by overzealous parents and teachers.

sokoloff 3y ago
That's certainly possible. If an infallible oracle told you that was the case and you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard, would you hire the college graduate or the candidate who got railroaded into attending a bit of college and then dropped out? I think the tie goes to the college graduate for over half of the hiring managers, and I don't think that's crazy at all.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard That's different from the original quote, which was simply: > If there are two candidates — one with a degree, one without, “to many hiring managers, it will feel risky,” he said. But your question is interesting. Have you considered that if it's possible for a dropout to performally equally to a degree holder in every perceivable respect, it raises doubts about the value of a degree? Suppose that you had two candidates who interviewed otherwise equally in every regard and also both had degrees, indeed from the same institution. Then how would you choose? By height? Age? Gender? Physical attractiveness?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    If you have two indistinguishable candidates on relevant dimensions who both passed the interview bar and are the best two candidates you have for one position, literally just flip a coin, hire the winner, and move on.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > If you have two indistinguishable candidates on relevant dimensions who both passed the interview bar and are the best two candidates you have for one position, literally just flip a coin, hire the winner, and move on. Agreed. Now explain how having completed a degree is a "relevant dimension", unlike height, age, etc. You ignored my first question: "Have you considered that if it's possible for a dropout to performally equally to a degree holder in every perceivable respect, it raises doubts about the value of a degree?" My second question was actually intended to highlight the issue. What you appear to be doing with "I have evidence that the person with a degree can follow rules/policies and track towards a long-term goal with success" is reaching for one arbitrary personal characteristic and inventing an idiosyncratic, non-scientific psychological theory in order to justify discrimination. Others do the same thing with age and gender, for example (younger people and men are just better at programming, they say). You don't know the life story of these people, and there are any number of reasons for someone not completing a degree: monetary problems, family problems, a major illness or injury, natural disaster, etc. Moreover, if you select just based on degree completion, you give job candidates no opportunity to show evidence that they "can follow rules/policies and track towards a long-term goal with success" in ways other than competing a degree. It's simply a bias toward degree holders. By your own admission, you're not using the degree as evidence of job-relevant skills but rather as a psychological, "life story" factor.