| > I don't know if they fail as much as non-phds, Yet you claim a PhD is not a signal. Weird. I'd have suspected you would have some empirical, not anecdotal or selection bias, evidence that was demonstrable.... >And it's well known that if you are smart and start working out of undergrad instead of getting a phd you usually end up significantly ahead in terms of earnings and on the corporate ladder. Citation? Also now you're moving the goalposts. It's especially funny since you didn't like that I pointed out how many Turing Awardees had PhDs, to which you complained. Now you see fit to sub-select your original claims. :) Well known? Then you should be able to provide evidence, since it must be so commonly demonstrated. I claim it's not well known, because it's not true. I've worked with lots of PhDs, and lots of non-PhDs, and the PhDs by earn more than the non, including owning the companies. Also, look over the boards of companies, especially tech, and see again if PhDs are over or under represented. Hint: they're over-represented. So you are simply incorrect in this. Demonstrably so. You make a lot of popular claims but have provided no empirical evidence. I at least provided two demonstrable cases where you're wrong. I noticed I've offered many times for you to provide actual evidence. None so far presented as expected. |