> 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

> 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.