3 ms·
This is like traditional inheritance based OOP vs Mixin architectures. A degree is traditional inheritance, you ARE something (a doctor, a software dev, etc).
by santiagobasulto 3y ago
This is like traditional inheritance based OOP vs Mixin architectures. A degree is traditional inheritance, you ARE something (a doctor, a software dev, etc).
Having the skills is like Mixins. You CAN do X, Y, Z. For example, you have the skills to do Data Wrangling with Pandas, you have the skills to perform classification with scikit-learn, etc.
I think skill-based approaches are a lot more efficient (just as in OOP :))
- LtWorf 3y agoThe problem is that evaluating a skill takes very long.
- dotancohen 3y agoNo, a degree does not demonstrate that you ARE something - modulo defects and accidents, all humans are composed of the same parts. A degree asserts that you have demonstrated skills and knowledge of a particular subject, most often at the same institution that taught those skills and knowledge. No analogy needed.
- santiagobasulto 3y agoSo, if you find a doctor for example, in their 40s/50s, and you give them an experiment (with all the statistical parameters) and you ask them to test/reject the null hypothesis, you think they'll be able to do so? Degrees say "you ARE X", they, by extension, might INFER that you KNOW the Skills X, Y, Z that are part of the study plan. But that's not granted. Having a degree doesn't mean you have the skills. You might have forgotten, you might have cheated, etc. Thesting for the skill in particular is the only way.
- dotancohen 3y agoNo, I do not think that doctors are particularly good with statistics. Nor do I think that OOP analogies are a good way to describe what a degree is.
- santiagobasulto 3y agoIf doctors aren't good at statistics we're all doomed :) Their job is literally being a statistics human reference.
- hnbad 3y agoDegrees are signals. A degree from a reputable university signals both a group membership in a certain social group (e.g. "Ivy League graduates") as well as a common shared experience. A degree in general also signals some level of social status (i.e. able to afford that university) as well as the rote learning ability, endurance and willingness to put up with arbitrary hurdles and rules to achieve that degree. To an extent it also demonstrates an ability and willingness to subordination and deference to authority. You seem to believe that companies look for the most skilled person to do a given job. They don't, even if they keep saying that. They look for someone willing to put up with as much bullshit and punishment as the company can get away with while creating as much profit for the company (or whichever metric is used instead) as possible without making the company leadership look bad. For higher positions like management they usually look for someone exactly like who they already have but who won't threaten their status within the company. For leadership positions they usually look for someone who won't fraternize with the subordinates and knows how to play politics. In addition to its use as signals, degrees used as a filter are also a base level way to demonstrate due diligence. If you take the guy without a degree, that's a risk and if he's a dud, that was a bad decision. If you take the one with a degree and he turns out to be a dud, that's just bad luck.