Live data from Hacker News

School is all about signaling, not skill-building

latimes.com

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#211

"You study arcane subjects year after year, knowing you’ll never use most of what you learned after graduation" Well, that wasn't true for me, and I'm pretty sure for those in engineering or science, it isn't, but even the history, philosophy, and economics courses I took I recall and use. Even Steve Jobs, who merely audited a class on calligraphy, took a great value from it. The fundamental flaw of Capland argument,…

> "You study arcane subjects year after year, knowing you’ll never use most of what you learned after graduation" Well, that wasn't true for me, and I'm pretty sure for those in engineering or science, it isn't, but even the history, philosophy, and economics courses I took I recall and use. Even Steve Jobs, who merely audited a class on calligraphy, took a great value from it. The average graduate of a major in a fo…

>It’s also unpleasant. Most people care as little for literature as I do for American football. Forcing them to learn about it leads to no lasting knowledge or appreciation and makes their lives actively worse.

>School is the closest to prison most people get, the most locked down, unfree environment they will ever encounter, sitting for hours doing as they are told, when they are told, asking permission to use the bathroom.

Summary: Kids hate school. I don't wanna eat my veggies. Your conclusion: compulsory education is bad. My conclusion: make education fun and delightful. Look at the Finnish model for example.

Even if most of humanity could survive economically, not being literate, the world is far better off with universal education and literacy in innumerable ways.

It's shocking to see someone even arguing that kids shouldn't be compelled to be educated. Perhaps you could argue that adults shouldn't, but education overall in sociological studies has been shown to be an inoculation against violence.

Hatred of having to learn things you don't want to learn is not a condemnation of education. People often don't even know whether or not they will like something until they are exposed to it, and anyone with children knows this, how "I don't wanna do this" can suddenly turn into "hey, can you drive me to class, I don't want to miss this"

I absolutely hated history class in high school. I hated economics and philosophy in college. Until after I had taken them, I then became intensely interested in the subjects and voraciously read everything I could find.

We are headed into a world where people won't be able to delegate critical thinking skills to institutions, because institutions will have trust in them destroyed by fakery everywhere. Teaching people to think critically and be skeptical, to reserve judgement, demand peer reviewed facts, to hedge against rash action will be critical to stability in society in the future IMHO.

> Oh yes it can. If you can point to what health of a society means we can make a first pass at measuring it.

Many studies have correlated the education of women with numerous variables that represent non-economic quality of life: reduction in infant mortality, increases in life expectancy, reductions of violence. The UN and OECD have many variables beyond economics that measure well being. There are even surveys of overall satisfaction and happiness.

I also question conclusions that people "don't use" stuff they learn in college. That treats learning as a vocational enterprise. You don't just apply specific things you've be taught by rote memorization and practice, but you develop connections between subjects you've only briefly been exposed to, that can affect your decisions later in life, sometimes serendipitously and unconsciously. The same people who say they never use algebra or calculus, end up solving problems in Excel using the same skills they learned solving word problems in school.

I took 4 years of French in high school. I forgot most of it. However, when I travel, most of the latin roots I learned have helped me decipher signs in countries where I couldn't even speak the language beyond Helloy. And the experience of what I did wrong in French, later helped me learn Mandarin by avoiding the behaviors that turned me off in French.

I hated taking "required" classes in college. Now I am glad I did, because I was so narrow minded and pigheaded at that age. I also used to hate travel, really hate it. I was introverted, bored of long rides, uncomfortable in foreign lands where I didn't understand anything. But after being dragged all over the world, traveling and living abroad, my perspective on many things changed.

Too many people want to live circumscribed in a bubble. Education in all its forms, be it primary school, college, voracious reading, or travel, moving people outside their comfort zone has many benefits.

Eat your veggies, they're good for you.

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#212
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but he might stick around and take and pass the Ph.D. qualifying exams and then be well on his way to a Princeton degree: At least at one time, the Princeton math department Web site stated that, IIRC, "students are expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own and that no courses are offered to prepare students for the qualifying exams. Courses are introductions to research by experts in their field…

Many (Some?) schools operate that way---the first step in a PhD is a qualifying exam. Some students may be able to pass it immediately after their undergraduate studies, while others (most?) require some remediate studying---undergrad classes, I guess. UT Austin, at the time I was there, used the other (and better, I think) method: breadth and depth graduate classes, typically more advanced versions of advanced under…

Princeton math (and other?) department specifically advertise that their research-only PhD program is unusual or unique.

https://www.math.princeton.edu/graduate

Generals/Quals require 1-2years of graduate level study, not remedial undergrad, if you look at the material covered and the syllabus and levels assigned to courses at various colleges. It just so happens that at a school like Princeton, 1st year PhD students have already taken graduate level classes in their field, or equivalent self study.

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#213

Admissions based on standardized test scores ONLY. Make colleges co-sign loans. Fixed it.

Since the article says the same thing happens in high school, it seems incredibly likely that your solution is not actually a solution and would have no impact.

Yes, let’s continue to let athletes and legacies distort the application pool!

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#214
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The point of this is that none of this has anything to do with signaling, but it also has very little to do with the quality of education received. The value of an e.g. Princeton degree is that you're the sort of person that could get accepted into Princeton. [..] The degree just works as 'proof of filtering'. That is precisely what signalling means. Top colleges pick only does who have signalled being over 99.99% o…

How long do you think their signalling value would last if they selected the same group of students, sent them to Aruba for four years, and then handed them diplomas?

That'd be a really interesting experiment.

I think the sort that get accepted to these programs also tend to be the sort that would consider just sitting on the beach sipping martinis to be something that'd rapidly become hell. It's just boring. So you'd have a group of ultra highly driven people with 4 years of undirected self study, but also access to pretty much all the knowledge they could ever want in the era of the internet.

It's really impossible to predict, but I do think the results would be interesting and not necessarily what you're implying. In today's era of assumption of education = skill, we often forget things like the Wright Brothers were a highschool grad and a highschool dropout -- yet they effectively invented aeronautical engineering with some skills they picked up operating a bicycle repair shop. There's some major dissonance between what we, collectively, ought be doing today - and what we actually are doing. I think it's a mixture of exponential leaps in entertainment and a general worsening in the condition of entrepreneurship (imagine how laws you'd be breaking by trying to fly your own homemade airplane now a days!) Your idea would at least certainly help combat the latter simply because that's all there'd be to do!

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re in the minority. Most professions aren’t engineering. Or medicine. Think of the average student graduating with a generic business degree. What actual skills does this person possess after 4 years of schooling? This is why so many Fortune 500 companies have new grad trainee programs that they funnel people through. The fact is, most of these generic “business” jobs can be done by anyone with a few months of on…

Surprisingly few. New grad training programs still depend on the "grad" part. It's not like Fortune 500 businesses are stupid. If they could hire random high school grads for all their jobs and pay them less, don't you think they would? As you point out, college degree requirements have not always existed, they were added. Chesterton's Fence is a useful mental guide here. People don't generally make things harder on…

Many many jobs today that require a college degree used to require a high school diploma. Yes those require intelligence and studiousness in varying degrees, but these skills can be assessed by interviews and hiring people in entry level positions for 4 years (or less!), not making them sit through irrelet college classes.

Half of a US college degree curriculum (the liberal arts distribution) isn't part of the curriculum at all in the UK for a science degree; are those UK degrees producing useless employees?

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#216
post #78

Article was fine until this: These behaviors make perfect sense if — and only if — employers are eager to detect workers who dutifully confirm to social expectations. In a society where parents, teachers and peers glorify graduation, failing classes and dropping out are deviant acts. This is a misunderstanding. Employers pay attention to qualifications, e.g. on a CV, as an informational shortcut. If you don't get the…

Weirdly, when I was leaving for college, I was warned that spending any time at a big school like UT Austin would end up making me a deviant. There was talk about someone's cousin who came back from Austin wearing leather and with a nose ring. Lesbianism was a possibility. Certainly, nobody thought college was for those who conform to social expectations. Not at all sure if I came out deviant or just crazy.

Social expectations vary by social class. The low education religious people you describe are a different social class from educated business and technical professionals

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#217
Does anyone else feel like college is mostly about class gate-keeping? I am not saying education isn't important.

In these digital times is paying $100k+ really necessary to get the skills you need for a good career? or is it more about separating the haves from the have nots using a very expensive piece of paper?

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#218
post #159

Because this is Hacker News, let's stick with technology: have none of you guys ever experienced the power gap? Seriously? I went to a decent school, not great but pretty well known. I had friends who went to community colleges and transferred to a school like mine, and friends who went to Ivy League schools. Our senior year, the Ivy guys were writing their own toy operating systems and compilers, and I was reading s…

I've had this conversation with a coworker who was frustrated that people with wealth could leverage that wealth to create more opportunities for themselves. My response is essentially: "isn't that what you want to do for yourself?" He seems to think it is more fair if someone with less wealth got access to those opportunities, instead of the people with wealth. How is that more fair? Why does it matter who gets the…

I agree with you 100%, the point was that degrees are not worthless, not that the system is inherently unfair.

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#219
Author is in one of my favorite EconTalk podcast episodes: "Bryan Caplan on the Case Against Education"

Probably similar content covered, but it's a good discussion. And he covers some of the points I see people trying to argue in the comments here.

[0] http://www.econtalk.org/bryan-caplan-on-the-case-against-edu...

Re: School is all about signaling, not skill-building

#220
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but he might stick around and take and pass the Ph.D. qualifying exams and then be well on his way to a Princeton degree: At least at one time, the Princeton math department Web site stated that, IIRC, "students are expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own and that no courses are offered to prepare students for the qualifying exams. Courses are introductions to research by experts in their field…

Many (Some?) schools operate that way---the first step in a PhD is a qualifying exam. Some students may be able to pass it immediately after their undergraduate studies, while others (most?) require some remediate studying---undergrad classes, I guess. UT Austin, at the time I was there, used the other (and better, I think) method: breadth and depth graduate classes, typically more advanced versions of advanced under…

On orals, I did some!!

Maybe the first was as a senior. I got Kelley, General Topology and once a week gave a lecture to a prof! One week a chapter, and the next some exercises! It was fun!

The next time was on a written qualifying exam: The exam had an error, and I wasted time trying to prove it! I asked for an oral. One guy tried to haze me, but the other profs were nice, and I walked out with a rare "High Pass".

The third time was for my oral defense of my Ph.D. dissertation.

I was out running, and when I got back my wife said I'd gotten a phone call from a prof, the Chair of the committee that was to approve my dissertation -- no pushover, the Chair and a majority of the committee had to be from outside my department. Well, the Chair called me. Still with sweat from running, on my back on the bed, I had the actual oral exam! He had a question about one paragraph, so I reworded it, had my word processing retype the thing, and he was happy.

Then the fourth oral exam was the dissertation defense -- it was for show since the real one had been over the phone. The Chair looked really serious and let me look really serious and good.

Maybe there was one more: I'd rushed ahead in freshman calculus and done the first year on my own. Then I asked to start on sophomore calculus and never take freshman calculus. So, the prof gave me in effect an oral exam on freshman calculus. He concluded I'd passed and let me in sophomore calculus. He did say that he couldn't give me course credit for freshman calculus, but fine with me -- I just wanted to get going, get on with calculus, and not repeat what I'd just studied well.

Post reply on HN