Support NeoGAF

[Jooney]

I think viewing tertiary education through the sole lens of employment is the wrong way of look at it. Education is much bigger than that, and has far reaching implications for the well-being of society.

 

[Black Mamba]

I have to say, Black Mamba, that's the strangest reading of the purpose of College I've ever heard, and I'm still trying to parse it. My initial thought is if that's how you really view it the implications would be that it's incredibly inefficient in the long run. If you're already a highly skilled worker, why are we forcing you to go through 4 years for essentially nothing? I mean if you literally learn nothing that qualifies you for a job, just spend four years showing your dedication to something, then that's really just inefficient as all hell to everyone involved.

Those 4 years are your signal to employees that you're a high skilled worker. It's an adverse selection problem

Spence won a Nobel prize for devising this model, btw. http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ecsjgs/Teaching/Advanced Microeconomics/Articles/spence.pdf

Here, this seems to be a piece on signalling in adverse selection scenario from a lecture, though in more mathematical terms.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/552

I think viewing tertiary education through the sole lens of employment is the wrong way of look at it. Education is much bigger than that, and has far reaching implications for the well-being of society.

When you break things down organically, it's the truth. But we as humans like to add more meaning to things to make us feel better. Not that there aren't other benefits from university (not graduate level), but I think they're overblown.

 

[RDreamer]

Those 4 years are your signal to employees that you're a high skilled worker. It's an adverse selection problem

Spence won a Nobel prize for devising this model, btw. http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ecsjgs/Teaching/Advanced Microeconomics/Articles/spence.pdf

Here, this seems to be a piece on signalling in adverse selection scenario from a lecture, though in more mathematical terms.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/552

I mean, I get what you're saying as far as adverse selection. It's just really odd that you think you gain absolutely 100% nothing that qualifies you for a job through college. That college is literally just to help employers select good from bad employees that were already good or bad in high school. It seems weird, and it's the first time I've heard anyone at all say that. And if that truly were the case then we've got a lot of work to do, because we shouldn't be sending people to school to gain literally nothing but an indicator that they were a good worker 4 years ago.

 

[Black Mamba]

I mean, I get what you're saying as far as adverse selection. It's just really odd that you think you gain absolutely 100% nothing that qualifies you for a job through college. That college is literally just to help employers select good from bad employees that were already good or bad in high school. It seems weird, and it's the first time I've heard anyone at all say that. And if that truly were the case then we've got a lot of work to do, because we shouldn't be sending people to school to gain literally nothing but an indicator that they were a good worker 4 years ago.

I said there are exceptions. Surely you gain in STEM if you're becoming an engineer, for instance. I mean, you have to learn calculus otherwise you'll come across situations you wouldn't know how to figure out.

It's not 100%. Of course, if an employer knew you'd be a high skilled worker without college they'd spend that time teaching you math on their own dime. Universities subsidize that for them.

There are benefits to university but a lot superficial. Let's face it, it's mostly a time to have sex, smoke pot, drink, go to concerts, and dick around while studying (don't get me wrong, I loved my time in college).

But how would employers know who to hire without it?

 

[Chichikov]

I mean, I get what you're saying as far as adverse selection. It's just really odd that you think you gain absolutely 100% nothing that qualifies you for a job through college. That college is literally just to help employers select good from bad employees that were already good or bad in high school. It seems weird, and it's the first time I've heard anyone at all say that. And if that truly were the case then we've got a lot of work to do, because we shouldn't be sending people to school to gain literally nothing but an indicator that they were a good worker 4 years ago.

In the fields of computer science and law, colleges are in no small part an expensive sorting function.
It's not their intent, but it's their function.

 

[RDreamer]

In the fields of computer science and law, colleges are in no small part an expensive sorting function.
It's not their intent, but it's their function.

Computer Science and Law in college don't actually teach you anything?

 

[Shadow Hog]

In the fields of computer science and law, colleges are in no small part an expensive sorting function.
It's not their intent, but it's their function.

Expensive in terms of processing time or memory footprint? I mean, what, are they using Bubble Sort or something?

 

[empty vessel]

This is a strange approach. You're basically arguing the libertarian argument that whatever humans decide collectively is always right even if it's inefficient. Very weird considering I thought you were a socialist.

That isn't a libertarian argument. It's a collectivist argument, but it's not the one I'm making in any event. I'm not talking at all about what is right or wrong. I was responding to your judgment about what is right or wrong that was disguised as an objective assertion. Whether any given resource is "misallocated" is an individual judgment. There is no such thing as an objectively "correct" allocation. There are only allocations upon which humans pass individual judgment. In other words, if you tell me there is a misallocation of resources, I'll tell you to let me be the judge of that. And in a society, we are all the judge of it. And in a democratic society, we can decide what the "correct" allocation is. We can have disagreements about allocations, but we can't have correct and incorrect allocations.

Employees use universities to help them figure out which people to hire. If every single person goes to university, then employees are guessing and this is highly inefficient. granted they guess now too, but the risk of being wrong is a lot lower. It would be inefficient to just have everyone go to college.

That is what employers use universities for. It is not what students use universities for nor what society uses them for.

At the same time, even just allowing it free to all would make it inefficient as those who shouldn't be there are.

It's inefficient to give everybody health care. It's inefficient to have parks. It's inefficient to give everybody education through high school. It's inefficient to have libraries.

So what if it's inefficient? Again, however, nobody is suggesting that everybody in the society attend college, so I don't know why you keep running back to that. We are saying that every qualified individual who wants to attend college ought to be able to attend college for free (or even be paid for it). Nobody is talking about making university education mandatory or standardless.

I do agree university is good for everyone in a vacuum because the more educated and the more experienced the better, but there are downsides and those are related to the issue of signalling.

I don't give a shit about signalling, but allowing qualified people who want to attend college to do so for free will not have any affect at all on "signalling." The only change will be that people leaving college will not be encumbered with debt that constitutes a severe drag on the economy.

Again, the issues of finance can be dealt with in numerous ways. People entering massive debt is not the way it should go but neither is the other extreme. As usual, the sensible solution lies in the middle.

The middle being free university education (as opposed to the other extreme of paying people for attending university, which I personally believe we ought to do).

 

[Byakuya769]

I think I meant to quote Byakuya769's post.
And for some reason I thought you come for a different background, but I'm terrible at keeping track of those things.

p.s.
You should read the Onion's Biden book(ish).
Vis a vis nothing but your avatar.

: /

Then your post wouldn't have made much sense.

 

[Mario]

I said there are exceptions. Surely you gain in STEM if you're becoming an engineer, for instance. I mean, you have to learn calculus otherwise you'll come across situations you wouldn't know how to figure out.

I'm sure you can throw medicine and law in there as well easily, as well as a host of other specialist areas.

Let's face it, it's mostly a time to have sex, smoke pot, drink, go to concerts, and dick around while studying (don't get me wrong, I loved my time in college).

Just because some people do that doesn't mean that it is "mostly a time" to do that. If that's what people are going to college for in the US, then the system is fundamentally broken, and obviously your "money is the arbiter" approach is the wrong one.

There are ways to filter candidates for the suitability, interest and benefit of college other than ability to pay.

Employers use universities to help them figure out which people to hire. If every single person goes to university, then employees are guessing and this is highly inefficient. granted they guess now too, but the risk of being wrong is a lot lower. It would be inefficient to just have everyone go to college.

Er, I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the process here. If more people had college degrees, it would not add any additional overhead to the candidate filtering and selection process for my business.

 

[Chichikov]

Computer Science and Law in college don't actually teach you anything?

I'll leave law degree for the lawyers, but for computer science, 4 years of coding will prepare you much better than 4 years of college for most of the jobs out there.
And it's not that they don't teach you anything, it's comparing university's way of acquiring the tools of the trade with the readily available alternatives.
Yes, there are jobs out there that require strong academic background, but they are few and far between (slight hyperbole, I think, didn't ran the proverbial numbers) everything else, it's stuff you can pick on your on.

p.s.
Not that it matter, but I'm for the most part a product of academia.

 

[Frank the Great]

I'm going to graduate law school with about $200k in student loan debt in May.

My salary as a clerk, which I will be doing for a year after I graduate? $49k. LOL.

 

[Piecake]

Personally, I think we should invest a lot more money into pre-kindergarten education. Thats where I think we will do the most good, make the most gains, and middle and high school will start to get better as a result of that

 

[Gotchaye]

Computer Science and Law in college don't actually teach you anything?

That's more accurate than not. You learn stuff, but it doesn't end up being that useful. A person who gets a computer science degree and then goes to work for Google is not going to be much more productive one year into the job than if s/he'd just worked a year at Google without college. And probably substantially less productive than if s/he'd spent those four college years working at Google. (maybe five or six friends of mine from college did computer science and went on to work at big tech companies like Google)

Practicing lawyers are typically so specialized that law school is just not that relevant to them, except insofar as it helps to pass the bar. Maybe they had one semester on the thing they spend the rest of their lives doing. (bunch of lawyers in my family and three friends)

This is basically true for engineering too, in my experience. None of my friends who graduated with mechanical engineering degrees find their education past sophomore year to be particularly relevant, especially not four years into a job. You need a little math (not even calculus, often), the ability to learn what you need to be doing on the job, and the right sort of intuition (which is pretty hard to teach). (my own major)

Even STEM majors are basically just learning to be graduate students. The sorts of jobs one does with a bachelor's degree just don't demand a particularly broad or thorough understanding of a field. Companies hire MSs or PhDs for that. I'm inclined to give med school the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I'm pretty big on the idea of a universal liberal arts education. I think there's a lot of value there, and in college generally, but it's just not really in making people more employable. Maybe it could be, if we did a good enough job, but we don't. The problem is that a dumbass with a college degree stays a dumbass - we need to be working on the critical thinking side of things rather than on transmitting specific pieces of information. Some degrees do a better job of this than others. I'm a fan of computer science, math, and especially well-taught humanities programs (and especially especially philosophy).

 

[TacticalFox88]

God it's good to be back.

But to the topic...sorry all your proposals are for naught. Why? Simply because until you change America's attitude toward education all the reforms in the world, even if somehow implemented, won't do jack shit.

Once you've solve the cultural problem, then 70% of the battle is already won and everything else will, quite literally, fall into place.

 

[Black Mamba]

That isn't a libertarian argument. It's a collectivist argument, but it's not the one I'm making in any event. I'm not talking at all about what is right or wrong. I was responding to your judgment about what is right or wrong that was disguised as an objective assertion. Whether any given resource is "misallocated" is an individual judgment. There is no such thing as an objectively "correct" allocation. There are only allocations upon which humans pass individual judgment. In other words, if you tell me there is a misallocation of resources, I'll tell you to let me be the judge of that. And in a society, we are all the judge of it. And in a democratic society, we can decide what the "correct" allocation is. We can have disagreements about allocations, but we can't have correct and incorrect allocations.

Allocations are more efficient when they approach the allocation that would happen under symmetric information in general

that better?

Look, if as a society we decide to put everyone through college, employers would have a harder time figuring out who to hire. And then this would lead to less economic efficiency (slower innovation and productivity). You think this is okay because we decide it as a society, but that's a silly approach. Societies make bad decisions as a collective all the time. For instance, as a society, we've decided to put pot smokers in jail.

We should want to make sure that people who are low skilled workers don't try to signal they are high skilled workers.

That is what employers use universities for. It is not what students use universities for nor what society uses them for.

No, it's what students use them for as well. Almost nobody goes to college to get that superficial stuff. It's all to get a good job.

It's inefficient to give everybody health care. It's inefficient to have parks. It's inefficient to give everybody education through high school. It's inefficient to have libraries.

I don't agree with your claim that it's inefficient. I actually think it's quite efficient to have all those things if administered intelligently.

So what if it's inefficient? Again, however, nobody is suggesting that everybody in the society attend college, so I don't know why you keep running back to that. We are saying that every qualified individual who wants to attend college ought to be able to attend college for free (or even be paid for it). Nobody is talking about making university education mandatory or standardless.

Should everyone who is qualified and want to attend medical school be able to do it?

I don't give a shit about signalling, but allowing qualified people who want to attend college to do so for free will not have any affect at all on "signalling." The only change will be that people leaving college will not be encumbered with debt that constitutes a severe drag on the economy.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "qualified." But signalling does matter.

"In this paper I develop, and test, a simple signaling model in which some fraction of the
population is constrained1 from entering university. I show that increasing university access, by expanding the university system and thereby lowering the cost of post-secondary education, may increase the high school dropout rate. As some previously constrained, but relatively high ability, students leave the high school graduate group to become university enrollees, the incentive to hide behind the remaining “constrained” high school graduates is diminished. As a result, the most able “unconstrained” high school graduates enroll in university and the least able drop out of high school. This is in stark contrast to a pure human capital model which predicts only an upward movement in educational attainment."

Interesting consequence, eh?: http://econ.ucsb.edu/~kelly/signal.pdf

More support that university works as a signal and it matters: http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/lang kropp.pdf

But I agree on not leaving graduates with insane debt levels.

The middle being free university education (as opposed to the other extreme of paying people for attending university, which I personally believe we ought to do).

We do pay at the graduate level on some things (and I agree at the graduate level for certain fields).

The middle is reasonable cost education with the ability to become free under certain qualifications (as I mentioned, you could prove yourself for 2 years and then get it paid off).

You could refund everyone who passes STEM with a certain GPA. You could do a whole other list of things. But having a potential risk for the student is a good thing.

I also think all loans should come from the gov't. Private banks shouldn't profit.

 

[Chichikov]

I will once again pimp the excellent 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang talks quite eloquently and persuasively about the roll of higher education in modern society.
I highly highly recommend the book in general, it's not as radical as it name suggests, it's thought provoking, easy and short read.

I'm going to graduate law school with about $200k in student loan debt in May.

My salary as a clerk, which I will be doing for a year after I graduate? $49k. LOL.

It's a good way to guarantee you're not going to stir shit up, no sir, gotta keep making those payments so my credit is good so I can get a loan and buy a house so I don't get homeless when I'm old.
The system work.

Spoiler

Not to be taken 100% seriously, I think my recent trip to China woke the ghost of my dead trotskyist grandmother; she always took the sino in the soviet-sino split.

 

[empty vessel]

I'll leave law degree for the lawyers, but for computer science, 4 years of coding will prepare you much better than 4 years of college for most of the jobs out there.
And it's not that they don't teach you anything, it's comparing university's way of acquiring the tools of the trade with the readily available alternatives.
Yes, there are jobs out there that require strong academic background, but they are few and far between (slight hyperbole, I think, didn't ran the proverbial numbers) everything else, it's stuff you can pick on your on.

p.s.
Not that it matter, but I'm for the most part a product of academia.

I, for one, don't disagree that college does not do much to prepare one for skilled employment in narrow terms. But I don't have a problem with that, because I don't think that's what university education ought to do in the first place. University is where people who want a liberal education should go to become educated. It is not a means to an end, it is the end.

(Not trying to imply that you would disagree with any of that, mind you. Of course, also not implying that you agree. Your post just prompted the thought.)

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm sure you can throw medicine and law in there as well easily, as well as a host of other specialist areas.

Medicine is graduate and specialized so not part of the conversation. I'm only discussion undergraduate studies.

Law school, well, I have some other thoughts about that but don't want to upset any lawyers

Just because some people do that doesn't mean that it is "mostly a time" to do that. If that's what people are going to college for in the US, then the system is fundamentally broken, and obviously your "money is the arbiter" approach is the wrong one.

There are ways to filter candidates for the suitability, interest and benefit of college other than ability to pay.

I don't think that makes the system broken at all.

Money is an arbiter no matter what. 4 years of college = 4 years of not making full wages even if it's free. That's 4 years you have to make up over time. That alone is one cost unless you're paid a HS graduate's average wage to do it.

Time and effort is another arbiter.

I don't think ability to pay now should matter but willing to pay for the education should be part of the equation. The idea is "I'm a high skilled worker and I'm willing to pay to prove it because I will make that money back and then some by proving it long term."

Er, I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the process here. If more people had college degrees, it would not add any additional overhead to the candidate filtering and selection process for my business.

Not all businesses are the same and I won't speak on your behalf.

Imagine a world with no college. Everyone stops at high school. How would you choose to hire someone?

I, for one, don't disagree that college does not do much to prepare one for skilled employment in narrow terms. But I don't have a problem with that, because I don't think that's what university education ought to do in the first place. University is where people who want a liberal education should go to become educated. It is not a means to an end, it is the end.

(Not trying to imply that you would disagree with any of that, mind you. Of course, also not implying that you agree. Your post just prompted the thought.)

You don't need a university to become educated...

and how much do you even remember from university? 5%? 10%? At some point, education outside what you directly use is just superficial.

 

[zero shift]

I find it odd that people think that college is the solution to all of the middle classes problems.

 

[Chichikov]

I, for one, don't disagree that college does not do much to prepare one for skilled employment in narrow terms. But I don't have a problem with that, because I don't think that's what university education ought to do in the first place. University is where people who want a liberal education should go to become educated. It is not a means to an end, it is the end.

(Not trying to imply that you would disagree with any of that, mind you. Of course, also not implying that you agree. Your post just prompted the thought.)

In the abstract I wholeheartedly agree, but I', not sure how much you can apply that to something like computer science.
I think we need to radically rethink the way we train our coders in general, they're the backbone of the tech industry, and our schools are doing a bit of a shit job at pumping out good ones.


edit:
Oh watched 60 minutes, 2 things -
a. Hillary is running.
b. between this and Bill's convention speech it can only mean one thing - inauguration day 2017 foursome.

 

[empty vessel]

You don't need a university to become educated...

and how much do you even remember from university? 5%? 10%? At some point, education outside what you directly use is just superficial.

One doesn't always need an institution to become liberally educated, but institutions are indeed useful for liberal education.

You see no value in liberal education. I do. We are obviously going to disagree, then, on how it ought to be allocated.

 

[lednerg]

Barack Obama is Not Pleased
The president on his enemies, the media, and the future of football
(New Republic)

Really good interview with The Bams himself.

 

[zero shift]

So I think I'm going to do my next article on the Chilean Miracle.

Its amazing what they were able to do under a truly free market:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/GDP_per_Capita_Chile_1972-1990.PNG

 

[Mario]

Imagine a world with no college. Everyone stops at high school. How would you choose to hire someone?

Pretty much exactly the same way. People would apply with their resume including educational records, work experience if any, extracurricular stuff, samples/portfolio, references etc. We'd screen on the basis of that, interview and test as appropriate, and hire the most qualified candidate that was above our minimum standard.

There would be no effective difference in the process, though of course in a world without college the nature of the company and roles within would be fundamentally different (in a world without college my company would probably not exist).

 

[cooljeanius]

No, it's what students use them for as well. Almost nobody goes to college to get that superficial stuff. It's all to get a good job.

I guess I'm part of that "almost nobody" then

 

[Clevinger]

Details from the bipartisan senate immigration plan are out:

Before a pathway to citizenship can happen, the group says that new border security measures first must take effect, including an increase in the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and agents at the border, new rules tracking people entering the country on temporary visas and the creation of a commission of southwestern political and community leaders to ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect.

As those security measures take effect, the proposal says, illegal immigrants would be forced to register with the government, undergo a background check, and pay a fine and back taxes so they can obtain a legal status on a probationary basis. That would allow them to live and work legally in the United States, unless they have committed serious crimes, which could subject them to deportation. Those who have obtained probationary legal status would not be allowed to access federal benefits.

After the enforcement measures take effect, those who have obtained their probationary legal status would be required to undergo a series of requirements — including learning English and civics and undergoing further background checks — before being able to obtain permanent residency. The proposal insists that those who have entered the country illegally would not get preferential treatment over legal immigrants playing by the rules.

 

[jamesinclair]

The Israel thread.....

 

[jamesinclair]

Details from the bipartisan senate immigration plan are out:

So they're being asked to pay taxes on top of taxes they already paid, but barred from federal services? And forced to learn a language, a requirement that doesn't exist elsewhere?

Sounds illegal

 

[Chichikov]

The Israel thread.....

Bah, I knew I shouldn't have clicked, now I'm sad (as if the whole thing wasn't sad enough already).

 

[Nert]

Details from the bipartisan senate immigration plan are out:

Any serious effort at immigration reform would also focus on our broken legal immigration process. Seriously, it can take upwards of two decades for some people to make it into the country legally. The definition of playing by the rules needs to change. I'll just cross my fingers for now, I guess.

 

[Chichikov]

Details from the bipartisan senate immigration plan are out:

So we're going to do this whole mess of surveillance and bureaucracy and make our future fellow citizens' life miserable just so that those who were on the wrong side of history could feel better about themselves?
I don't have high expectation from DC, but what leverage to idiots have to crap on the immigration reform?

 

[eBay Huckster]

The Israel thread.....

Holy Jesus, it's like that NPV "discussion" on steroids.

 

[Qazaq]

Yup.

 

[Clevinger]

the call is coming from inside the house!

 

[Chichikov]

Yup.

You personally should consider that thread as the "don't" section of the posting manual.

the call is coming from inside the house!

hahahahaha

 

[Qazaq]

You personally should consider that thread as the "don't" part of the posting manual.

How lovingly condescending of you. Let me feel free to not take your advice.

(Unless of course I get "forced" to, which happens to people in Forum vs. 1 situations.)

Oh watched 60 minutes, 2 things -
a. Hillary is running.

Haha, can you elaborate?

 

[Black Mamba]

One doesn't always need an institution to become liberally educated, but institutions are indeed useful for liberal education.

You see no value in liberal education. I do. We are obviously going to disagree, then, on how it ought to be allocated.

I never said I see no value in it. I just argued it's overstated and university is mostly just a way for high skilled workers to signal their value to employers.

We can have a separate discussion on the non-labor related values of a liberal education, however.

Pretty much exactly the same way. People would apply with their resume including educational records, work experience if any, extracurricular stuff, samples/portfolio, references etc. We'd screen on the basis of that, interview and test as appropriate, and hire the most qualified candidate that was above our minimum standard.

There would be no effective difference in the process, though of course in a world without college the nature of the company and roles within would be fundamentally different (in a world without college my company would probably not exist).

Well, if you have a sample portfolio, there's the ability to distinguish from another method. Again, I don't know your business so it's kind of in the dark for me.

My point was, without college there would be a much larger pool of candidates and a lot of them unqualified but hard to distinguish from the qualified people. Companies would be wasting a lot of resources on mistakes. Again, if your business requires an actual portfolio of samples of what they do it might be a business that doesn't get affected. An author hiring an illustrator doesn't need to see their academic record at all, for instance. Just what they can draw.

I guess I'm part of that "almost nobody" then

Is it really not about a job for you?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Details from the bipartisan senate immigration plan are out:

I'm fine with the border security stuff, and the pathway sounds almost exactly like the one Obama has been outlining for 5 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fixing-immigration-system-america-s-21st-century-economy

I wonder where the DREAM Act fits in. Will Obama demand it be included in any bill he signs?

 

[Chichikov]

How lovingly condescending of you. Let me feel free to not take your advice.

(Unless of course I get "forced" to, which happens to people in Forum vs. 1 situations.)

You're going to make Neil Young proud, just like Kurt did.

Spoiler

too soon? nah, not too soon.

Haha, can you elaborate?

People who are not going to run for president don't get the leader of the free world say to America how awesome they are on television.
And they seem to genuinely like each other, but it's hard to tell such thing from an interview.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Question is what happens to the plan from current points to actual Law.

Seems all right at the moment, I am sure someone on some liberal blog/site will find all the faults with it and let me know.

 

[RDreamer]

My point was, without college there would be a much larger pool of candidates and a lot of them unqualified but hard to distinguish from the qualified people. Companies would be wasting a lot of resources on mistakes. Again, if your business requires an actual portfolio of samples of what they do it might be a business that doesn't get affected. An author hiring an illustrator doesn't need to see their academic record at all, for instance. Just what they can draw.

Why are you going all the way to without college, though? Shouldn't you be pointing to a hypothetical if everyone went to college type scenario? That's not going to be the same as eliminating college at all. If everyone that wanted to could go to college you'd still be able to weed people out by qualifications (did they take classes that put them above others for this particular position?), interest (is their major or accomplishments close to what we're trying to do at this company?), overall accomplishments (they'd have more time for internships and other accomplishments at college), overall performance in college, possibly portfolio of work (depending on what it is you're going into), or even their own testing for their particular job. I don't get how suddenly with a wider crop of people to choose from this becomes crippling for employers... there's more than enough criteria they could use to figure out who might be the best pick.

 

[Qazaq]

You're going to make Neil Young proud, just like Kurt did.
too soon? nah, not too soon.

Sorry, I missed the reference. Please, if you want to take a pot shot, at least let me in on it, too.

People who are not going to run for president don't get the leader of the free world say to America how awesome they are on television.

I guess.

I dunno, I hope she runs so much.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Politico's story reports that the bill will include the DREAM Act. Wow, I'm impressed. Obviously we need more specifics on the border security stuff, but I'm rather optimistic.

And if it doesn't pass we get to blame the House. Not bad for 2014

 

[Chichikov]

Sorry, I missed the reference. Please, if you want to take a pot shot, at least let me in on it, too.

Goodnight sweet prince, the forum was never meant for one as crazy as you.

 

[cooljeanius]

Is it really not about a job for you?

You included the word "all" before:

No, it's what students use them for as well. Almost nobody goes to college to get that superficial stuff. It's all to get a good job.

Sure, it's about a job, but it's also about all that "superficial stuff", too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Just finished the 60 Minutes interview. That was a pretty blatant torch passing moment imo, and felt like Obama directly telling some democrats that yes, Hillary is on my side. Hillary was rather reserved through the interview as Obama shoveled praise on her. Certainly a bit strange but interesting nonetheless.

Barring health issues I think she'll run now. She had a similar moment a few months ago with at a Jewish conference where she seemed like she was campaigning, but talk died down after that. I'm guessing she'll get some much needed rest, write a book, and then choose a couple safe candidates to endorse next year. I'm guessing the primary process will essentially be a giant audition for VP. O'Malley better hire a speech coach, and loosen up a bit. Seems like Montana's governor would be a perfect selection, but she might also look for someone younger

 

[Black Mamba]

Why are you going all the way to without college, though? Shouldn't you be pointing to a hypothetical if everyone went to college type scenario? That's not going to be the same as eliminating college at all. If everyone that wanted to could go to college you'd still be able to weed people out by qualifications (did they take classes that put them above others for this particular position?), interest (is their major or accomplishments close to what we're trying to do at this company?), overall accomplishments (they'd have more time for internships and other accomplishments at college), overall performance in college, possibly portfolio of work (depending on what it is you're going into), or even their own testing for their particular job. I don't get how suddenly with a wider crop of people to choose from this becomes crippling for employers... there's more than enough criteria they could use to figure out who might be the best pick.

I used without college because I was just trying to get Mario to think about him, as an employer, hiring other people in a pool where everyone looked basically the same. It was just easier to go that route because there wouldn't even be things like majors to look it (trying to make as little discerning info as possible).

I don't think most of the rest of that stuff matters outside of STEM that much. Most college graduates going for the same job have the similar resumes. Basically, the degree gets you the interview and the interview gets you the job.

There will always be nuances but for the most part the paper is what matters. Ask the thousands of psych majors what on their resume will matter when they apply for a regular office job.

You included the word "all" before:

Fair enough. I should have said "almost all" and it would have followed the previous sentence properly.

Question. Would you be going to college if you had the job you intend to have locked up prior?

 

[StopMakingSense]

So... 2016 Clinton - Biden ticket?

Spoiler

lol

 

[TacticalFox88]

I may be alone on this but I think the bengazi hearing pissed Hillary off. To the point where her running went from a maybe to a hell yes. It be the perfect fuck you to the republicans who tried to tear her down during the whole ordeal