Don't know what you're talking about here, sorry. What do you mean by 'signal'?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Printable View
Don't know what you're talking about here, sorry. What do you mean by 'signal'?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's a link to his book and a snippet of the description
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11225.html
Quote:
Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students' skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity—in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use
Oh right you've quoted this argument before. Well, I disagree that people don't benefit from education in ways that are independent of the information learned.
https://scontent.fqlf1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...64&oe=5BA0BF79Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I think people benefit from it. The Caplan discussion is about why people are paying such unusually high amounts of money (both employers and students) for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also the benefit isn't without opportunity costs. I think we (as a society) should have a discussion about those.
https://i.redd.it/gko3okyfax711.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'm so confused why BS's argument that good universities is the result of great schools is complete rubbish. The reason the US and UK have so many great universities is because they are research facilities with the best reputation and funding by far so they attract the best from all over the world.
Neither the UK or US has a great education system between the ages of 5-18 but that doesn't mean that they don't have some brilliant schools, what it does mean is that they are massively failing large proportions of their schooling population.
This line of argument only makes me think that university is a complete and utter waste of time and money for most people. Which isn't something I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It believe it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
And yet you hung around and finished your degree.
For some people it probably is because they don't try very hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I would have quit about 70% through but I understood the signaling model and opportunity costs and comparative advantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I would probably be much better off today if I didn't live in a culture that pushed college so intently. I'd certainly be happier, making a lot more money, and would probably have a much more developed family life.
Are you planning on continuing your education or what is next for you, if you don't mind me asking.
Well, you can move to like the Dominican Republic and be the one-eyed manQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That's why it's a strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I don't really get this argument though. If it's all about signalling and nothing is gained from education, wouldn't companies who hired uneducated people save money by getting the same quality workers for a lower price, and wouldn't this make advanced education obsolete for non-specialised courses?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's some food for thought - uneducated masses tend to vote right-wing. So, there's an incentive for certain governments to undercut basic education. The smartest will still muddle their way through and go on to succeed at higher ed, but the dumbest will just stay dumb and pliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Just an idea.
I've considered doing a doctorate in economics, but I think my motivations (mixed with my drive) would not make that wise. What I'm getting at is that I want to change what I view to be wrong directions taken by the economic academia, yet I don't have the kind of crazy right-tail distribution drive needed to succeed at that, which would turn my decision into a disaster for sure. Outside of that, unless you want to research or teach, doing a doctorate is probably a very bad idea, and I don't necessarily want to do those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm working now in the roofing industry. The scope of my work is less refined than I would like, but essentially the path forward is a mix of estimating and sales. I use the math and writing I learned in college quite a bit for it, but my experience in the field is sorta backwards. Successful estimators and salespeople are almost never people who come from college, but instead are the brighter ones who started out as roofers. The sorts of skills learned in college are a small portion of what is needed to be successful in the construction industry even if you don't build anything with your own hands. It's almost like I'm learning everything new, and it's in a sort of backwards manner because I don't have the building experience.
There is potential for me to make good money a few years down the road, but as it is right now, I would make markedly more money doing something "easier" like driving semis.
Smart people don't not go to college anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The success of people who do go to college isn't known to be due to what they learn or if it's because going-to-be-successful people choose to go to college.
The signaling isn't just intelligence, but things like conformity. If you hire from a pool of people who don't go to college, you're hiring from the pool of people who can't do things like sit down and follow orders and do boring stuff for years on end with a smile on their face.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
Edit: I mean about your future plans.
This sort of univariate analysis doesn't tell us much IMO. I can point out how economists tilt significantly more right-wing than other academics, and that's a univariate analysis that makes my ideas look betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sure thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
These things are not infallible predictors obviously. There's a lot of variance around who starts where and becomes what. But, the basic relationship between level of ed and political views is fairly well established.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Take the anti-Vietnam movement in the 60s and 70s for example. This was largely fueled by college students, even though they were themselves (at least early on, before the lottery system was introduced) exempt from the draft. It's notable that it was less likely that the uneducated would question the war, even though they had the most to lose (at least the young men among them), but instead they were the ones who generally went along with what the gov't wanted them to do.
There's something to be said for the role of education in teaching people how to think (wrongly). There was once a time where maybe educated people were more skeptical and had better understanding about stuff, but that seems to have reversed.
Yeah the last 30 years of poor educational policy in the UK and US has been because of that. It's much easier to say unions have had a worse effect on education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There is an interesting point in that documentary I suggested which says schools were set up with like 15% going into academic jobs, doctors, research etc, 25% going into roles where education is needed like more office based jobs and the rest it was ok if they only picked up basic skills because they were going into more manual labour type positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Then they changed the goalposts but never updated the system.
Really? I don't think so. I think most educated people are very skeptical. The issue is freedom of speech has completely gone and it pushes people to take lines they don't fully back because to argue against them would ruin their careers. We are in a lynch mob era like never before.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Skepticism might be the wrong way to put it. What I'm getting at is along the lines of how sometimes it takes a powerful intellect to rationalize (and believe) some very dumb things.
I gotta side with Savvy a bit.
Even mentioning that there is discrimination against whites and men in American society is a bad social move.
Even mentioning that people whom are crying that they're oppressed are only asking for the ability to oppress is met with disdain.
Seriously. Whom that cries inequality is actually seeking equality and not merely a reversal of privilege?
Most feminists don't want equality. They want chivalry.
They ignore that the whole point of chivalry was sexism saying that women need protection and privilege lest the big scary world undo them.
You think? I'd say try holding a door for a feminist and see how they react.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's an interesting point. I'm not sure what I think of it.
My view as of now is that most "feminists" are really just trying to weed out weak men as well as trying to operate in the sub-optimal world where men are weak.
Disagree. It's important to note here that it's actually a small minority of women that identify themselves as "feminists". However, I believe for those women, feminism stems from sincere outrage over an alleged male privilege and a genuine disgust toward masculine behavior that they perceive as "toxic". They believe that the history of the human race is a story of patriarchal tyranny where men were privileged and dominant while women were enslaved and oppressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We're talking two different crowds. I agree with that regarding the very extreme group of feminists. A wide swath of the rest who are not so extreme and are more tangentially attached to feminism fit into what I described IMO.
The core driver is probably made up of legit thinkers (like Camille Paglia) and sour grapes man haters. My point isn't about this group, but about partial and confused adopters in a fairweather way.
Yeah. It was my mistake to say "feminists" like it's a well-defined term.
In my everyday experience, women appreciate it when you hold a door for them (men, too. It's a nice thing to do, but not super nice, just a simple acknowledgement.)
That's not really what I was talking about.
I think it'd be hilarious if someone got mad at me for holding a door for her, because my reasons for doing so would literally have nothing to do with her identity, only her proximity.
An example from my daily adventures on public transit in St Louis:
I'm talking about the puffed up jerk-wad men who get to the front of the line to board the bus, then stop and usher all the women ahead of them. The women are downright arrogant about how entitled they are to this treatment, and say shit like, "Chivalry is hard to find these days." and "None of these other guys has any respect for women." That really gets me. Do they actually not understand that guy is insulting them? I guess not.
People are confusing as all hell.
It's funny (or sad) at how much of the behavior that was integral for survival for 99.99% of human existence is frowned upon today.
Here's what I'm getting at:Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Adoption of market reforms towards freedom of choice are the most likely component responsible for unprecedented growth in well-being throughout the world in all of human history. Yet, where lies the spearhead of legitimizing opposition to this? The universities. Is that opposition due to thoughtful skepticism? Doesn't seem to be. It seems to be more ideologically and naivete driven.
The sciences in universities have not had to deal with this a whole lot yet. The humanities have all but been taken over by it. Where I was, the more mathematical side of the social sciences, is waging a war on it right now. I saw it in real time, where the textbooks said one thing while some of the professors taught some things that don't cohere with the textbooks but DO cohere with an ideological and political view of the world.