|
|
|
|
|
|
by raganwald
5716 days ago
|
|
|
Unless you really believe that the sample set contains 95% people with degrees. That's the whole point. The value of the degree is the inverse of its scarcity. If you have 50% of people with degrees, it's more useful than if you have 80%, which is more useful than if you have 95%. Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying? I'm not saying a degree isn't useful or meaningful.It is not a boolean, meaningful or not meaningful. Just that it is more useful and more meaningful if a degree is scarce than if it is plentiful. We don't need to agree or disagree on whether the lack of a degree signals the lack of knowledge or whether we have confidence that those with degrees really do have all of the skills we seek. Just that the scarcer it is, the more meaning we apply to it. |
|
|
The value of the degree, to you, trying to whittle down applicants, is inversely related to scarcity. But not to the degree holders. In fact, as the scarcity decreases, the cost of not having the degree may increase.
There's effectively two states: (1) Have the degree (2) Don't have the degree.
In a world where the degree is scarce having the degree may provide more value over the average person (although if it is too scarce, the value may actually diminish, as it may also hinder its credibility or recognition). But at the same time, not having the degree doesn't reduce your value as much versus the average person (since its rare, no one notices its absence).
When the degree is common, the opposite is the case.
What I'm trying to say is that scarcity matters to you in a very isolated activity (whittling down applicants). Outside of that, the role of scarcity plays both sides of the fence.