31–40 of 55 posts
Now, I don't want to cargo-cult elite schools, but yes graduating from one of them sends a strong signal. I assume someone who could get into Stanford & al. is minimally competent since he was able to get admitted and graduate from a tough CS program.
I grew up pretty low income, Midwest rural, and there’s a clear difference between those of us from my high school class that went to college, and those that didn’t. I busted my butt to pay my way through school, and I am a much better person, and a much better employee because of it. University is an over priced pyramid scheme, but you learn things at university, like work ethic, that really sets you apart from othe…
Of course there are always sharp and diligent people that didn't go to college. But if they don't have a degree or work experience, then you have to interview them to find out and possibly do more on the job training. When someone already has lots of applicants, they don't bother finding out.
All three cases by this author are only controversial because we have ignored a greater point: colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. It has been this way for a millennium. The workforce started using them en masse 60 years ago and we’ve been trying to patch th…
I think this blind spot is because many people derive part of their identity with their university.
An undergrad provides very little that is distinguishing these days and the distribution of "goodness," it imbues is long-tailed. However, where she sees this obvious discrimination as stupid, I see disruption and arbitrage opportunity. Very excited by these observations.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, better known as 'equal employment opportunity', prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not say anything about college degrees or professional certifications so no, legally speaking, requiring such things is not discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
All three cases by this author are only controversial because we have ignored a greater point: colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. It has been this way for a millennium. The workforce started using them en masse 60 years ago and we’ve been trying to patch th…
I'm continually surprised with how few people, even on HN, understand why private education exacerbates inequality. Limiting access to valuable information to only those who know how to navigate the secretive process will favor those with means. In this case the valuable information impacts lifetime earning income potential hence perpetuating inequality. I think this blind spot is because many people derive part of t…
>>I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university.
Both of these things can be true.
Wow this guy sounds like an asshole.
This article does make her sound like* a jerk. I don't mean to suggest Lauren Holliday is* a jerk or an asshole; she might be a perfectible reasonable and respectful person. But her writing here takes reputable evidence and skews it with misinterpretation and appeals to emotion. For example, the NOLO link she uses to support her claim "Filtering candidates by degree is the epitome of wrong and legally, it’s actually discriminatory" merely says that whether it's discriminatory "...depends on its into and its effect." And of course, the NOLO link has nothing to say about the morality of filtering by degree. Similarly, she asserts that "A LOT of rich kids" pay people to take classes/do assignments, which I suppose is true depending on one's definition of "a lot." The implication is that rich people regularly cheat in college.
Her goal seems to be persuading employers to drop their degree requirements. Instead of writing a convincing article, she got distracted by frustration and a dislike of the rich. If she writes a follow-up, a better case would be simply support the point: "Employers are likely missing out on superior job candidates because of degree requirements." I think that, along with the bare minimum of outrage, would get closer to achieving the goal and further from encouraging the mob to grab pitchforks.
All three cases by this author are only controversial because we have ignored a greater point: colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. It has been this way for a millennium. The workforce started using them en masse 60 years ago and we’ve been trying to patch th…
I'm continually surprised with how few people, even on HN, understand why private education exacerbates inequality. Limiting access to valuable information to only those who know how to navigate the secretive process will favor those with means. In this case the valuable information impacts lifetime earning income potential hence perpetuating inequality. I think this blind spot is because many people derive part of t…
All the aspiring foreigners aren’t in the US higher education system, and the ones that are overcame other forms of adversity and are fairly exceptional or are party members in China that are practically tasked with going to an American school.
And the Americans? Mostly upper middle class, benefactors of a support system.