| I can assure you, people who hold a university degree are not particularly conscientious or consistent. What matters is not whether they are very conscientious or consistent, but rather how conscientious or consistent relative to candidates who didn't earn the degree. Employers use this signal to perform statistical discrimination on their pool of applicants. The situation here is similar to the statistical discrimination that happens when you are shopping for car insurance: women pay lower premiums not because they are particularly safe drivers, but rather because they are safer (or less costly) than men, on average. This kind of statistical discrimination, that is, using educational attainment to make hiring decision, is often somewhat illegal (based on straight reading of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., e.g. for most BA in History graduates it is hard to argue that their diploma is "reasonably related" to the jobs they are doing, but the employers will happily choose the graduate over someone with only high-school diploma). To my knowledge, however, nobody ever made an actual legal challenge, so employers happily keep using it. I'll admit they probably do well in the "slog through mind numbingly boring work", but that's often a negative. Whenever I've been in a team full of people who have no problem doing the most tedious work you can imagine, the result have been the very same people tend to oppose ways to improve efficiency (usually "automate the boring work"). This may be true for people in highly-skilled jobs requiring high intelligence, which probably describes most of HN readers, but many other employers will value consistently slogging through mundane tasks over creativity and innovation. I don't want to work with people who don't mind really really boring work. I want to work with people who hate it enough to eliminate the need to do it. Engineers tend to be of the former category, and software people of the latter. So do I, but, as you noted, the management doesn't value these very much. Also, depending on which school you go to, getting a degree from it is just its own skill. Knowing how to work the system (e.g. get previous years' homeworks and exams, etc) can play a big role. Precisely. This is more important, considering that less than half of college students are proficient in reading (NAAL 2003), and the rest only has intermediate level or worse. The point here is that people tend to forget most everything they learn in school, so what they learn exactly doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. There are down sides to a low ranked school (lack of smart peers and perhaps a slightly watered down curriculum), but I think quality of instruction is not one of them. Right. My understanding is that while teaching quality in low ranked schools is lower than in high ranked ones on average, there are still plenty of low ranked schools with high teaching quality, better than most high ranked ones. One might ask themselves then, why then are they lower ranked? The truth is that the education quality doesn't matter that much, what matters is student selection. |