3 ms·

I wrote my comment as an objection to richrichie's dismissal of counter staff with "worthless" degrees. You replied with your experience of mostly table service

I wrote my comment as an objection to richrichie's dismissal of counter staff with "worthless" degrees. You replied with your experience of mostly table service staff, with no mention of their degree attainment. What historical record do you refer to? Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s, including a wave of strikes in 1912 and 1913. This didn't require a college degree. https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurantstrikewave https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurant... says three of the demands were: "The first demand was for a $20 minimum weekly wage for waiters, which would largely eliminate the tipping system. The second was for a universal eight-hour working day, which would replace the much longer shifts that many had been forced to work. The third demand was for the abolition of private employment agencies, which often took portions of worker’s pay in return for securing a job." As for "colleges flat out won't allow anyone without savvy into their halls". How do colleges measure "savvy"? So-called "legacy admissions" are not based on savvy. If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? If your parents are rich enough to pay for classwork, SAT, and ACT tutors, does that make you more savvy? (To say nothing of parents who have donated millions to the school over the years, and just happen to have their kid accepted there.) I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. Acting and improv training would have been better, and that doesn't require a college education (likely one of those "useless" degrees).

randomdata 2y ago
> Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s The union leaders no doubt had savvy. Those who needed to lean on those who had savvy are not demonstrative of the sort. After all, that's the whole reason people join unions: To outsource savviness to those who have it, improving one's unsavvy standing within some kind of community. > This didn't require a college degree. Well, of course. Some jobs require licensing, but the "degree required" you see on job advertisements is just that: An advertisement. It communicates the idea of "You might like this job if you have an interest in this type of scholastic program." It has nothing to do with any kind of literal requirements. > How do colleges measure "savvy"? They try to measure sexual attractiveness. That is what college sells, after all: A community of people in their sexual prime that are prepared to regularly mingle. It requires savvy to make oneself sexually attractive, though. While anyone can be attractive to someone, savvy is necessary to make oneself attractive to a reasonably wide audience. Being attractive to only one other person isn't typically going to get you admittance (of course, no measure of the nature is ever 100% perfect). > If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? Automatically, no. Statistically, those sports players do tend to be more sexually attractive to a wide audience. > I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. I look forward to receiving your application. Someone with savvy, but not the right kind of savvy, would be the perfect hire.

randomdata 2y ago

> Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s The union leaders no doubt had savvy. Those who needed to lean on those who had savvy are not demonstrative of the sort. After all, that's the whole reason people join unions: To outsource savviness to those who have it, improving one's unsavvy standing within some kind of community. > This didn't require a college degree. Well, of course. Some jobs require licensing, but the "degree required" you see on job advertisements is just that: An advertisement. It communicates the idea of "You might like this job if you have an interest in this type of scholastic program." It has nothing to do with any kind of literal requirements. > How do colleges measure "savvy"? They try to measure sexual attractiveness. That is what college sells, after all: A community of people in their sexual prime that are prepared to regularly mingle. It requires savvy to make oneself sexually attractive, though. While anyone can be attractive to someone, savvy is necessary to make oneself attractive to a reasonably wide audience. Being attractive to only one other person isn't typically going to get you admittance (of course, no measure of the nature is ever 100% perfect). > If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? Automatically, no. Statistically, those sports players do tend to be more sexually attractive to a wide audience. > I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. I look forward to receiving your application. Someone with savvy, but not the right kind of savvy, would be the perfect hire.