Upper Education: Signalling or Learning

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most of the stuff you actually use in the world is in the 100 level courses, not the 400 level courses.

At MIT we had a completely different numbering scheme.

 

[laughing dog]

Most of the stuff you actually use in the world is in the 100 level courses, not the 400 level courses.

Not from a good education.

 

[barbos]

Both guys are right, it's just they are talking about different aspects of the problem.
If we exclude DeWry, Trump, other busyness schools then yes, people, do learn in "upper" education, but there is too much signaling. There were actual studies which have shown your success does in fact depends on superficial stuff, and it is true across all professions, not just scams like lawyers, where I was once told there is strict division between schools with law-firm partner prospects and with no such prospects.

But I am surprised that "signal" guy is admitting that, considering he is teaching. I guess he feels secure enough to be honest about it.

Wanted to ask about something, did you mean DeVry? And why do you think there is no learning there compared to other schools? Have they tested before and after and both sets of schools to find out how much is learned. What if we find out that same learning happens whether going to a 4 year, 2 year or MOOC?

I presume you agree about law and business schools but disagree about DeVry
Of course they learn "something" there, that's not the question. It's a matter of amount and efforts.
Judging by their commercials they teach stuff your dad supposed to teach you anyway, if not then ability to read and follow manuals is all is what required.
Speaking of signaling and DeVry, I am not sure about all contexts but in certain contexts DeVry degree is negative signaling.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wanted to ask about something, did you mean DeVry? And why do you think there is no learning there compared to other schools? Have they tested before and after and both sets of schools to find out how much is learned. What if we find out that same learning happens whether going to a 4 year, 2 year or MOOC?

I presume you agree about law and business schools but disagree about DeVry
Of course they learn "something" there, that's not the question. It's a matter of amount and efforts.
Judging by their commercials they teach stuff your dad supposed to teach you anyway, if not then ability to read and follow manuals is all is what required.
Speaking of signaling and DeVry, I am not sure about all contexts but in certain contexts DeVry degree is negative signaling.

Wouldn't that show even more that schools are really about signalling? Do people take the time to find out how much a Devry student learns compared to a state school compared to a top tier school? Or is the prerequisites to get into them what is used?

 

[ronburgundy]

Visa versa for me. 300/400 + Grad is what I've used.

If you end up as a specialist in the field you studied it can work out that way. Most (many?) people do not have the foresight at 18 to study exactly what they end up doing in their later career.

That's just it, 100 level courses mostly fill your head with isolated facts with narrow application, but are needed as a foundation for the reasoning in higher level courses. 300 and 400 level courses require more thinking, inferening, reasoning, and application of knowledge. As such, they develop those thinking skills, which apply to all thinking, regardless of topic. Thus, higher level courses develop skills with far more general (but indirect) applicability than the direct but narrow application of topic-specific facts in the 100 level courses.

As with your first post in the thread, you are using a very limited and cognitively invalid definition of what it means to "use what you learn".

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you end up as a specialist in the field you studied it can work out that way. Most (many?) people do not have the foresight at 18 to study exactly what they end up doing in their later career.

That's just it, 100 level courses mostly fill your head with isolated facts with narrow application, but are needed as a foundation for the reasoning in higher level courses. 300 and 400 level courses require more thinking, inferening, reasoning, and application of knowledge. As such, they develop those thinking skills, which apply to all thinking, regardless of topic. Thus, higher level courses develop skills with far more general (but indirect) applicability than the direct but narrow application of topic-specific facts in the 100 level courses.

As with your first post in the thread, you are using a very limited and cognitively invalid definition of what it means to "use what you learn".

It very much depends on the major in job. We each have our guess of the statistics of the match based on our beliefs. Not sure there are real numbers.

 

[ronburgundy]

College is both learning and signalling, and there is nothing wrong with the latter. It produces learning among those willing and capable of learning at that level. Thus, graduating with a decent gpa signals that you are willing and capable of learning at the college level.

Going to college is voluntary, so doing well does not show you are a mindless follower. Rather doing poorly shows your are too immature and/or cognitively incapable to take advantage of the learning and other benefits in the situation you chose to put yourself into. It means you are recklessly wasting your own or someone else's resources.
Doing well in college shows the opposite, namely that you are willing and capable of taking advantage of the situation you put yourself into.

 

[coloradoatheist]

College is both learning and signalling, and there is nothing wrong with the latter. It produces learning among those willing and capable of learning at that level. Thus, graduating with a decent gpa signals that you are willing and capable of learning at the college level.

Going to college is voluntary, so doing well does not show you are a mindless follower. Rather doing poorly shows your are too immature and/or cognitively incapable to take advantage of the learning and other benefits in the situation you chose to put yourself into. It means you are recklessly wasting your own or someone else's resources.
Doing well in college shows the opposite, namely that you are willing and capable of taking advantage of the situation you put yourself into.

And the last part is describing signalling again. My argument would be what you actually need to learn for most majors is only 2-3 years but extra is required to be "well rounded"

 

[ronburgundy]

College is both learning and signalling, and there is nothing wrong with the latter. It produces learning among those willing and capable of learning at that level. Thus, graduating with a decent gpa signals that you are willing and capable of learning at the college level.

Going to college is voluntary, so doing well does not show you are a mindless follower. Rather doing poorly shows your are too immature and/or cognitively incapable to take advantage of the learning and other benefits in the situation you chose to put yourself into. It means you are recklessly wasting your own or someone else's resources.
Doing well in college shows the opposite, namely that you are willing and capable of taking advantage of the situation you put yourself into.

And the last part is describing signalling again.

True, I said it was signaling and signalling is a good and valid thing for college to do.

My argument would be what you actually need to learn for most majors is only 2-3 years but extra is required to be "well rounded"

The extra develops your general thinking skills that apply in indirect ways to the profession that your major targets more directly, but also all kinds of intellectual tasks and everyday life (see my reply to dismal).

 

[laughing dog]

College is both learning and signalling, and there is nothing wrong with the latter. It produces learning among those willing and capable of learning at that level. Thus, graduating with a decent gpa signals that you are willing and capable of learning at the college level.

Going to college is voluntary, so doing well does not show you are a mindless follower. Rather doing poorly shows your are too immature and/or cognitively incapable to take advantage of the learning and other benefits in the situation you chose to put yourself into. It means you are recklessly wasting your own or someone else's resources.
Doing well in college shows the opposite, namely that you are willing and capable of taking advantage of the situation you put yourself into.

And the last part is describing signalling again. My argument would be what you actually need to learn for most majors is only 2-3 years but extra is required to be "well rounded"

Your position assumes that someone knows what they need to learn and knows what skills they will need to develop - something very few (if any) people know at any time, let alone when they are young.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And the last part is describing signalling again. My argument would be what you actually need to learn for most majors is only 2-3 years but extra is required to be "well rounded"

Your position assumes that someone knows what they need to learn and knows what skills they will need to develop - something very few (if any) people know at any time, let alone when they are young.

So we are spending a lot of tax payer money to make sure people can find themselves?

 

[laughing dog]

Your position assumes that someone knows what they need to learn and knows what skills they will need to develop - something very few (if any) people know at any time, let alone when they are young.

So we are spending a lot of tax payer money to make sure people can find themselves?

What prompted that non-sequitur?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. It's about turning general directions into more specific directions and ensuring they are carried out. As your career progresses if you do it well those general directions become ever more general until at the top they simply amount to "do well".

You can make "following orders" sound fancy if you like but it is just following orders.

A mindless cog preserving the dictatorial structure.

If you're mindless you're not going to be a very good manager.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well that settles that then.

While there are certainly courses that aren't necessary to gain a degree, like Chemistry for a Civil Engineering degree, I have a hard time thinking an engineering degree can be had quickly. Pre-Law and Pre-Med are probably the absolute dumbest of major layouts. But then isn't there something to a comprehensive education in general... or is a College just job training?

I have an engineering degree and doubt I have ever used 5% of what I learned.

Yet, people are still impressed I have it.

On the other hand, I went to graduate school for finance and immediately went into a financial job and used a decent amount of what I learned. But probably what I used could have been learned in a few months of training on the job. Most of the stuff you actually use in the world is in the 100 level courses, not the 400 level courses.

I disagree. The 100 level courses are just the building blocks needed to work at the higher levels. I would say that what I use professionally is almost all from the 200 and 300 level courses. The 400 level stuff was too exotic, I don't think I've used a bit of it in the real world. (Although I have made real-world use of stuff from a 400-level statistics course. On the other hand I can see no reason it was 400 level--200 level would have been more appropriate.)

 

[untermensche]

You can make "following orders" sound fancy if you like but it is just following orders.

A mindless cog preserving the dictatorial structure.

If you're mindless you're not going to be a very good manager.

All it takes is dictating others to follow orders from above.

It takes a great willingness to follow arbitrary rules made by idiots without question.

And the educational system is a method to find people with these qualities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're mindless you're not going to be a very good manager.

All it takes is dictating others to follow orders from above.

It takes a great willingness to follow arbitrary rules made by idiots without question.

And the educational system is a method to find people with these qualities.

Once again showing you don't understand.

It's not merely dictating orders. It's taking general directions and making them more specific and keeping things on track.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Rather doing poorly shows your are too immature and/or cognitively incapable to take advantage of the learning and other benefits in the situation you chose to put yourself into. It means you are recklessly wasting your own or someone else's resources.

Really? Are these the only two choices you can think up in your opining?

 

[barbos]

OK, let just make one thing clear. Middle management is paid more not because it's such a difficult job which requires years in college and training. They are paid more because they could cost more if you pay them less. They would start stealing if they are not paid enough.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, what if you put a higher paid layer of management above them to keep an eye on them?

 

[barbos]

Well, what if you put a higher paid layer of management above them to keep an eye on them?

That will and does work, but you still have to pay lower management more.