[ap22213]

"...graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional...a signal that someone has decided to pursue something through to the end..."

I see this point-of-view a lot, and it is certainly the conventional wisdom. But, for a moment, let's abandon this belief and explore other perspectives.

What if college isn't a demonstration of tenacity or natural ability? Instead, what if education is just a game that everyone is forced to play at an early age, and what if advanced-degree seekers are those who have learned to enjoy playing the game? (Or, have been forced to play, because of economic reasons)

I certainly can buy that.

For instance, I know a lot of people with advanced degrees, and they generally fit into 3 buckets: 1) people who were expected to get an advanced degree because their parents had them, 2) people who enjoy playing games and winning external validation, 3) people who have an innate obsession with some aspect of knowledge. (BTW - I think the true scholars are category 3.)

What if people who win at education are just people who are naturally competitive, like being bounded by rules, are good at min-max game play, and who ultimately are driven by praise?

Certainly, those types of people would be excellent candidates for the corporation. But, are they also good candidates for being citizens or Humanity, in general?

And, what are other perspectives? I am just a curious person who happens to have a general dislike of conventional wisdom.

[chasing]

> For instance, I know a lot of people with advanced degrees, and they generally fit into 3 buckets: 1) people who were expected to get an advanced degree because their parents had them, 2) people who enjoy playing games and winning external validation, 3) people who have an innate obsession with some aspect of knowledge. (BTW - I think the true scholars are category 3.)

This is reductionist nonsense. Please. People get advanced degrees for a million reasons.

> What if people who win at education are just people who are naturally competitive, like being bounded by rules, are good at min-max game play, and who ultimately are driven by praise?

You can replace "education" with damned near anything in this sentence. "Business." "Basketball." "Super Smash Brothers Brawl." "Terrorism." Which is a sign that it's an asinine point.

[ap22213]

I'm sorry that someone stating their thoughts can so easily unleash your spite.

[chasing]

No spite! I harbor no ill will. I just thought they weren't very good points. And I tried to explain why.

[ChuckMcM]

I don't think 'conventional wisdom' means what you think it means, but setting that aside, what are you trying to say?

That people go to college for different reasons? I certainly think that would be generally agreed to.

[ap22213]

Isn't it pretty straight forward as to what it means? I wasn't attacking you; why do you seem defensive?

I'm saying:

1. Just because someone finishes a degree program doesn't mean that they have tenacity or natural ability. (The conventional wisdom, which you invoked, is that they do.)

2. If the goal is to filter people for tenacity or natural ability, there are probably better ways to do that.

3. Hiring people who view education as a game (i.e. I scored better than you!) may be a good strategy for corporations but not necessarily for entrepreneurship, science, or society, in general.

Also, I'm not trying to 'win' at internet discussion - just bring up different perspectives, which I think are interesting. And, perhaps other people have other interesting perspectives.

[ChuckMcM]

I'm not feeling attacked, your response was confusing.

You used the term "conventional wisdom" when perhaps you meant "What I think other people believe, or I have read other people to believe." That was confusing because I don't agree with the statement you made in #1. Folks I knew at college, and since then, all shared a common experience when their natural ability completely failed them in college. They 'hit the wall' as it were. That was part of the maturation process.

My comment was that college was the perhaps the first time someone gets to choose to take on a multi-year task that is nominally difficult. That isn't a subjective statement, it is a descriptive one. I say perhaps because it isn't the only possibility but it was the relevant one because the original article is about college and more specifically college degrees.

Your second statement asserts a filtration process. Again, not mentioned by me, but implied in the original article because the plan to make up a degree (presumably to qualify). Except that it isn't a filtration process its a selection process. Lots of people work in this industry and others without any degree or other certification. They experience selection bias when they are in a selection pool of individuals that have degrees but that selection bias is a primarily content based. The same person would have no selection bias in a pool of individuals with degrees outside the area of the job.

Successfully completed coursework in a topic, not necessarily a degree, carries with it an indication of interest. I've got 12 college hours of CNC machining coursework on my transcript, that comes from being interested in manufacturing. Interested enough to voluntarily invest some of my time to learn more about it. It is a social signal of sorts that it stronger than just a conversational opening of "Yeah I'm interested in CNC manufacturing machines."

I also disagree with your #3 but I understand what your are saying. Anyone who came through college and didn't get an appreciation for what it tried to teach them (which is my interpretation of the statement 'treating it like a game') would in fact be a signal not to hire them. It would represent to me, a lack of maturation in their ability to evaluate the use of their time. In my experience, that lack of maturity expresses as poor judgement in the workplace.

[snowwrestler]

If your alternate conception of college were true, then we would expect to find a strongly negative correlation between college degrees and people who are good citizens or good humans. We don't see that at all, so we can conclude that there is more to going to college than you propose.

[ap22213]

I'd predict that there would be no correlation, at all.