Ignorant Instructors...

[P.Clodius]

PP, could it be "The Old Boys Club" made it so? I am inclined to think yes.

[Primus Pilus]

PP, could it be "The Old Boys Club" made it so? I am inclined to think yes.

 

Quite honestly, regarding getting a job in the first place, you are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. My great-grandfather also worked for Briggs automotive and certainly helped his son to get a job (though I am completely unaware of any detail). Where the 'old boys club' theory begins to fall apart is only with the unionization of this particular industry and the challenges it presented to old loyalties, friendships and fraternization. What end result unionization may have had on my grandfathers ongoing career and the continuation of the 'old boys club', I honestly cannot say.

 

Again I am not making a social commentary on what is right or wrong, just describing one particular difference in eras.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd not certainly not make the argument that all classes in college are worth the money; however, I would point out that college is NOT vocational school and it SHOULD NOT be vocational school either. Most people come to college with no idea what they want to do, so it would be a disservice to most students to offer nothing but "practical" classes. Furthermore, the worthless classes are extremely popular for the same reason, and the university is more than happy to take the money of rudderless students who have no idea what they want to do. Hell, we go out of our way to *tempt* students with easy, worthless classes.

 

Second, one of the biggest reasons that college offers such a competitive advantage is that the high school diploma is a nearly meaningless scrap of paper--people routinely graduate from high school with extremely poor reading and mathematics skills. Polls of employers routinely show that they demand college degrees for jobs requiring quite modest reading and mathematics skills (ones that should be well within the mastery of a good high school student). If a certain score on the SAT were required to graduate from high school, or if high schools offered different types of degrees, it would go a long way in reducing the competitive advantage of college (from which most students never even graduate).

 

Last, I think Ursus' advice is terribly anti-intellectual. If you're in school to learn about the world, you should work hard enough to get good grades. If you're in school just so you can get your union-card into the middle class, stop it, and read Socrates: the unexamined life is not worth a man's living.

[Primus Pilus]

I'd not certainly not make the argument that all classes in college are worth the money; however, I would point out that college is NOT vocational school and it SHOULD NOT be vocational school either. Most people come to college with no idea what they want to do, so it would be a disservice to most students to offer nothing but "practical" classes. Furthermore, the worthless classes are extremely popular for the same reason, and the university is more than happy to take the money of rudderless students who have no idea what they want to do. Hell, we go out of our way to *tempt* students with easy, worthless classes.

 

Second, one of the biggest reasons that college offers such a competitive advantage is that the high school diploma is a nearly meaningless scrap of paper--people routinely graduate from high school with extremely poor reading and mathematics skills. Polls of employers routinely show that they demand college degrees for jobs requiring quite modest reading and mathematics skills (ones that should be well within the mastery of a good high school student). If a certain score on the SAT were required to graduate from high school, or if high schools offered different types of degrees, it would go a long way in reducing the competitive advantage of college (from which most students never even graduate).

 

Last, I think Ursus' advice is terribly anti-intellectual. If you're in school to learn about the world, you should work hard enough to get good grades. If you're in school just so you can get your union-card into the middle class, stop it, and read Socrates: the unexamined life is not worth a man's living.

 

 

I think the point Ursus was making was simply that the basic college degree has replaced the diploma as proof of generic literacy and basic skills, not that getting a degree is a waste of time. As you suggest, the degree (once reserved for societal elite) is now nearly a necessity to gain employment for the common masses.

 

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

 

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

[Primus Pilus]

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

 

Indeed. However, can't you just hear the cries of discrimination and impending lawsuits against the idea of using standardized tests. Alas for the protection of stupidity guised in the bane that is political correctness.

 

But I guess thats another issue entirely

[M. Porcius Cato]

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

 

Indeed. However, can't you just hear the cries of discrimination and impending lawsuits against the idea of using standardized tests. Alas for the protection of stupidity guised in the bane that is political correctness.

The legal case against using GREs would be enormously weak--at least in the US, employers can employ any standard they'd like in hiring (including personality tests, which are just as effective in predicting managerial skills as college GPA and SAT). BTW, I meant to mention that many firms now place a very high value on graduate school accomplishment (e.g., McKinsey) because they know that graduate school fosters critical thinking skills that are sorely lacking among most college graduates.

[Neos Dionysos]

 

In my opinon the world would be much a better place if the love of profit and the free market were to be united with the love of learning and intellectual freedom.

 

 

Either that, or if they really want to enshrine the quasi-socialist ideals they encourage in others, they can agree to live on a much lower standing of living (i.e., no unecessary comforts). Then tuition could be reduced and more students could afford university. And maybe I could get a refund on the money I already shelled in.

 

Hahahaha! Keep dreaming there Ursus, they suck you for all the money that you are worth so you end up paying off loans until you are in your 40's-50's. Besides... I think the countries only monopoly left is 'Follets' books.

 

You buy a book, ANY book from them for like about $55, and then they buy it back for only $8, but will turn around and sell it back for $55 and will not even buy back $100 textbooks because a new, 13th edition will be out, the only change from the last being some grammer corrections...

 

I'd not certainly not make the argument that all classes in college are worth the money; however, I would point out that college is NOT vocational school and it SHOULD NOT be vocational school either. Most people come to college with no idea what they want to do, so it would be a disservice to most students to offer nothing but "practical" classes. Furthermore, the worthless classes are extremely popular for the same reason, and the university is more than happy to take the money of rudderless students who have no idea what they want to do. Hell, we go out of our way to *tempt* students with easy, worthless classes.

 

Second, one of the biggest reasons that college offers such a competitive advantage is that the high school diploma is a nearly meaningless scrap of paper--people routinely graduate from high school with extremely poor reading and mathematics skills. Polls of employers routinely show that they demand college degrees for jobs requiring quite modest reading and mathematics skills (ones that should be well within the mastery of a good high school student). If a certain score on the SAT were required to graduate from high school, or if high schools offered different types of degrees, it would go a long way in reducing the competitive advantage of college (from which most students never even graduate).

 

Last, I think Ursus' advice is terribly anti-intellectual. If you're in school to learn about the world, you should work hard enough to get good grades. If you're in school just so you can get your union-card into the middle class, stop it, and read Socrates: the unexamined life is not worth a man's living.

 

 

I think the point Ursus was making was simply that the basic college degree has replaced the diploma as proof of generic literacy and basic skills, not that getting a degree is a waste of time. As you suggest, the degree (once reserved for societal elite) is now nearly a necessity to gain employment for the common masses.

 

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

 

Personally PP, I think we have almost hit that point as it is. I know that getting my BA is a must, but just looking at the estimated salary range is almost nothing, so a Masters is almost a necessity. I just REALLY hope we don't come to a point when Ph.D's are the norm... that would show how bad our educational system has gotten overral...

[Pantagathus]

That would be my Social Studies teacher. He COMPLETELY fails to accept that people were incredibly smart 2000 years ago.

 

As we all know, ancient man was just as smart or smarter than we are now. We just have better tools for hurting larger amounts of people now.

[Virgil61]

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

 

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

 

Nice idea in theory. I know numerous individuals in my civilian profession and Phds in related fields who I worked with who'd score extremely high on a GRE--and a lot of them are friggin' worthless. I've found that academic intelligence has little to do with drive, common sense, managerial skills, etc.

 

I'd use it as a baseline only but never without a serious interview with the individual, there are a lot of educated idiots out there.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Virgil61

[M. Porcius Cato]

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

Nice idea in theory. I know numerous individuals in my civilian profession and Phds in related fields who I worked with who'd score extremely high on a GRE--and a lot of them are friggin' worthless. I've found that academic intelligence has little to do with drive, common sense, managerial skills, etc.

I'd use it as a baseline only but never without a serious interview with the individual, there are a lot of educated idiots out there.

 

Yep, there sure are a lot of educated idiots out there. Even more uneducated idiots though. So, if you're playing the odds--go with education.

 

Also, personal interviews aren't better predictors of job performance than test scores (not that you said that)--in fact, they're often worse than no interviews at all because they're weighted so highly by the interviewer (who mystically *knows* how good a candidate is) that the interviewer ignores/discounts the test scores. Personal interviews are also notoriously racist, sexist, classist, and all the other bad -ists, which is one reason universities dropped the damned things years ago. With proper grooming, it's possible to make complete idiots look even...presidential.

[Neos Dionysos]

Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE.

Nice idea in theory. I know numerous individuals in my civilian profession and Phds in related fields who I worked with who'd score extremely high on a GRE--and a lot of them are friggin' worthless. I've found that academic intelligence has little to do with drive, common sense, managerial skills, etc.

I'd use it as a baseline only but never without a serious interview with the individual, there are a lot of educated idiots out there.

 

Yep, there sure are a lot of educated idiots out there. Even more uneducated idiots though. So, if you're playing the odds--go with education.

 

Also, personal interviews aren't better predictors of job performance than test scores (not that you said that)--in fact, they're often worse than no interviews at all because they're weighted so highly by the interviewer (who mystically *knows* how good a candidate is) that the interviewer ignores/discounts the test scores. Personal interviews are also notoriously racist, sexist, classist, and all the other bad -ists, which is one reason universities dropped the damned things years ago.

 

So in other words there seems to be no sure way to address what a 'good' applicant is? Since Test Scores have problems, interviews do as well... and degrees don't mean a damn half the time.

 

Hey, here's a solution, make people write a thesis paper 10 pages long... (I'm being half-serious)

 

With proper grooming, it's possible to make complete idiots look even...presidential.

 

I ain't touching that...

[Primus Pilus]

Hmm, strange as this may sound...

 

How about employers adopt popular culture entertainment into the hiring process. Hire all applicants at an entry level salary for 2 to 4 weeks without benefits. Whomever performs best, as voted upon in some sort of weighted system by co-workers and management gets the job?

 

Oh nevermind, the apprentice already does that.

 

YOUR FIRED!

 

(egads whats wrong with me)

[M. Porcius Cato]

So in other words there seems to be no sure way to address what a 'good' applicant is? Since Test Scores have problems, interviews do as well... and degrees don't mean a damn half the time.

 

There is no ONE perfect measure, but in COMBINATION the scores do a pretty darned good job of predicting job performance.

 

Even still, all these measures are just accounting for what the candidate brings to the task. There remain random factors the scores can't address: for example, the variations in performance of a highly-qualified person whose wife and children are tragically killed in an automobile accident; or a highly-qualified person whose boss is hitting on her; or a highly-qualified person who gets sucked into UNRV (I swear, it's just like a car accident!!! You can't look away!) ....

[Virgil61]

...

Yep, there sure are a lot of educated idiots out there. Even more uneducated idiots though. So, if you're playing the odds--go with education.

 

Also, personal interviews aren't better predictors of job performance than test scores (not that you said that)--in fact, they're often worse than no interviews at all because they're weighted so highly by the interviewer (who mystically *knows* how good a candidate is) that the interviewer ignores/discounts the test scores. Personal interviews are also notoriously racist, sexist, classist, and all the other bad -ists, which is one reason universities dropped the damned things years ago. With proper grooming, it's possible to make complete idiots look even...presidential.

 

Based on my own experience I'm not so sure the percentage of idiots with degrees is that much less than uneducated idiots, but perhaps working in D.C. has left me jaded.

 

My own field deals with a professional grad degree so the assumption of literacy isn't usually a guess. In lieu of a better methodology I'll still interview, still check backgrounds, still look them in the eye and worry as much about their social skills as professional and so on. Then after their hired mentor them well and give them a year probation to watch their performance. Yeah it's ugly, but it works well enough.