ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: Eriny on September 02, 2010, 12:51:56 pm
-
So, education is really important. It's the best possible investment you can make for your future. A bachelor's degree is supposed to pay off far more than share investment and real estate investment and as an 18 year old, it's realistically probably one of the very few investments you can properly make (as in, you could enter the share market, but you probably couldn't afford many shares, and it's unlikely that you could buy a property). Here's a source for this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/uni-degrees-never-sleep-and-leave-sharemarket-in-the-shade-20100830-147eh.html
HOWEVER, the 'myth' that we're always fed is that grades matter, where you go matters - it's supposed to follow you around no matter what you do. Because you failed that one subject, you'll never get into X top tier firm, or because you went to X university, you will never get a high paying job. It's lies! All lies!
I've already gone through the experience of having my high school marks not matter anymore. Nobody cares about them, nobody wants to see them. I had to get really good marks to get into the university course I wanted. But that's all it was - a ticket you can only use once.
When you graduate from uni and go into the jobs market, it's almost the same deal, except uni marks are a tiny portion of the ticket. They care if you fail a lot, and they care a little if all of your marks are HDs/H1s, but that's about it. So, anywhere in the grade range of pass to distinction won't be enough to exclude you from a position, nor is it enough to give you a guaranteed anything. I was talking to someone from the careers centre at my university who said that she often has to counsel distraught individuals who didn't get that internship or that clerkship, or even that grad position and couldn't understand why, because their grades were high. Apparently, they care about extra-curricular activities and experience in the field and whether or not you interview well than grades.
Moreover, while a lot of graduate job applications will ask for academic transcripts, not all do and certainly, by the time you're applying for your second job, they care only about the piece of paper saying you have the degree - nobody even asks to look at them. Again, your uni transcript is a ticket you only really use once, if ever.
I'm not saying that education doesn't matter, it obviously matters a great deal. However, all this toiling to get the grades you think you need, or that you're told you need, to do well in life isn't for a whole lot. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do your best or be happy with barely passing, but it does give you some idea of how much this all matters in the very big picture, which is: very little.
-
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
-
Thank you for this Eriny, it's just what I needed to hear right now. (Also, you write really really well)
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline.
Maybe, but uni marks rarely correlate with performance in the real world. VCE marks are like that too.
-
I think a better way of phrasing that would be that high marks don't guarantee success in the workforce or real world. I'm fairly sure they do correlate...
I agree though, your marks aren't massively important unless they're extremely bad or extremely good.
-
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
You'd find that much of things that you learn at university end up really being useless once you graduate. Ditto with VCE.
-
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
You'd find that much of things that you learn at university end up really being useless once you graduate. Ditto with VCE.
Learning itself is valuable. Extending yourself and opening your mind to new ideas improves myriad skills and allows you to broaden your thinking. Also, applying yourself at university demonstrates that you can handle pressure and workloads, and is a skill that you can bring forward into professional life. I definitely think education for the sake of education is very useful, and this is why a lot of jobs just want you to have a degree, regardless of what sort of degree it is.
-
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
I'm not saying that education doesn't matter, it obviously matters a great deal. However, all this toiling to get the grades you think you need, or that you're told you need, to do well in life isn't for a whole lot. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do your best or be happy with barely passing, but it does give you some idea of how much this all matters in the very big picture, which is: very little.
I totally agree that education for its own sake is worthwhile. In fact, if you're learning because you like it, that's really awesome! You get to enjoy these years for whatever intrinsic value they have to you, but you don't have to stress out if you got a B+ instead of an A, because it doesn't matter that much in terms of your future. What I mean to say is that for people who are enjoying their education, they get all the benefits of the journey without being so outcome-based.
It's a myth that every grade you get matters. Therefore, I guess you may as well enjoy the ride, rather than be so stressed about it.
-
Sry DP.
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
You'd find that much of things that you learn at university end up really being useless once you graduate. Ditto with VCE.
Learning itself is valuable. Extending yourself and opening your mind to new ideas improves myriad skills and allows you to broaden your thinking. Also, applying yourself at university demonstrates that you can handle pressure and workloads, and is a skill that you can bring forward into professional life. I definitely think education for the sake of education is very useful, and this is why a lot of jobs just want you to have a degree, regardless of what sort of degree it is.
I don't disagree with you, but if the reason why you think that 'education for the sake of education' is useful is in terms of employment, then you've missed the point of the whole concept.
Thank you for this Eriny, it's just what I needed to hear right now. (Also, you write really really well)
:D
-
Sry DP.
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
You'd find that much of things that you learn at university end up really being useless once you graduate. Ditto with VCE.
Learning itself is valuable. Extending yourself and opening your mind to new ideas improves myriad skills and allows you to broaden your thinking. Also, applying yourself at university demonstrates that you can handle pressure and workloads, and is a skill that you can bring forward into professional life. I definitely think education for the sake of education is very useful, and this is why a lot of jobs just want you to have a degree, regardless of what sort of degree it is.
I don't disagree with you, but if the reason why you think that 'education for the sake of education' is useful is in terms of employment, then you've missed the point of the whole concept.
Thank you for this Eriny, it's just what I needed to hear right now. (Also, you write really really well)
:D
I agree with what you wrote, but Gloamglozer was suggesting that there was little use to learning that sort of stuff, and there definitely is use. And a lot of it does come in use, I know I enjoy having good writing and analytical skills, better logic and problem solving skills and a better understanding of politics and economics (even though vce eco is a bit shit).
-
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
I'm not saying that education doesn't matter, it obviously matters a great deal. However, all this toiling to get the grades you think you need, or that you're told you need, to do well in life isn't for a whole lot. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do your best or be happy with barely passing, but it does give you some idea of how much this all matters in the very big picture, which is: very little.
I totally agree that education for its own sake is worthwhile. In fact, if you're learning because you like it, that's really awesome! You get to enjoy these years for whatever intrinsic value they have to you, but you don't have to stress out if you got a B+ instead of an A, because it doesn't matter that much in terms of your future. What I mean to say is that for people who are enjoying their education, they get all the benefits of the journey without being so outcome-based.
It's a myth that every grade you get matters. Therefore, I guess you may as well enjoy the ride, rather than be so stressed about it.
Yeah, I totally agree with that.
This whole thing binds with study scores and stuff too, people choosing subjects because they scale etc.
Uni = Win.
Btw, you do write well :)
-
I agree with what you wrote, but Gloamglozer was suggesting that there was little use to learning that sort of stuff, and there definitely is use. And a lot of it does come in use, I know I enjoy having good writing and analytical skills, better logic and problem solving skills and a better understanding of politics and economics (even though vce eco is a bit shit).
What? You mean Glockmeister? :P
-
All true, during my interview for a summer vacation internship, only one question revolved around my marks and the rest about real life experience, work experience and extra curricular activities.
-
I agree with what you wrote, but Gloamglozer was suggesting that there was little use to learning that sort of stuff, and there definitely is use. And a lot of it does come in use, I know I enjoy having good writing and analytical skills, better logic and problem solving skills and a better understanding of politics and economics (even though vce eco is a bit shit).
Ahh they all start with G, I couldn't be bothered going back to check :P
What? You mean Glockmeister? :P
-
Sry DP.
Have you ever wondered that if everyone adopted this worldview and just aimed to pass at 50%, professionalism and work standards would severely decline. Sometimes knowledge, education and understanding for their own quaint sake are just as important as that ticket with a degree on it.
You'd find that much of things that you learn at university end up really being useless once you graduate. Ditto with VCE.
Learning itself is valuable. Extending yourself and opening your mind to new ideas improves myriad skills and allows you to broaden your thinking. Also, applying yourself at university demonstrates that you can handle pressure and workloads, and is a skill that you can bring forward into professional life. I definitely think education for the sake of education is very useful, and this is why a lot of jobs just want you to have a degree, regardless of what sort of degree it is.
I don't disagree with you, but if the reason why you think that 'education for the sake of education' is useful is in terms of employment, then you've missed the point of the whole concept.
Thank you for this Eriny, it's just what I needed to hear right now. (Also, you write really really well)
:D
I agree with what you wrote, but Gloamglozer was suggesting that there was little use to learning that sort of stuff, and there definitely is use. And a lot of it does come in use, I know I enjoy having good writing and analytical skills, better logic and problem solving skills and a better understanding of politics and economics (even though vce eco is a bit shit).
Let my clear up what I meant.
What I was trying to say was that the information that is taught by the lecturers may not have any use within the next few years, not the generic skills that you're meant to get out of attending university (the ones you've specified, "good writing and analytical skills, better logic and problem solving skills"). Even in an area such as science, where you might think is rock solid 'truth', the reality is somewhat different.
I'll give you an example: If you've done biology (VCE or First year biochemistry), you would've come across the CAC cycle, also known as the TAC cycle, or Kreb's cycle. It looks like this
Now here it is in context of every single other biochemistry reaction.
So what am I saying here. It is very unlikely that through the course of your undergraduate education that you will actually have to learn every single reaction in the latter (and most lecturers won't know about every single one either), even if you major in biochemistry. The point of really learning these cycles is really to appreciate that biochemical pathways all intertwine with each other and to learn how to interpret these pathways in the context of diseases and failures in these pathways.
And that's assuming that you're going to be during research in biochemistry as a career. I'm not, and I still have to learn this.
-
Don't really see why you are qualified to make this post actually.
-
Don't really see why you are qualified to make this post actually.
Since when does someone need a qualification to make a post other than basic literacy and access to a computer?
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
-
I smell a faggot ^ That was a total waste of 20 seconds of reading.
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
lol. Are you just trolling?
In my initial post, the people being rejected for jobs despite having great marks were law students. Further, I don't see what the point of attacking me/my subjects is.
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
PhD doesn't equal smart.
-
"PhD's" especially don't.
-
The final paragraph of your rant renders that entire post worthless.
Anybody who honestly believes that subjects falling into the category of arts are useless clearly desperately lacks true intelligence and has an extremely narrow, sheltered worldview. Therefore, their opinions are not worth taking into account.
-
hater better be trollin.
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
Quite an economist's view on this topic. While you do have some good points, the way you separate those who do arts and those who don't is too harsh. First I agree with you (not entirely) on the fact that people who often get hired by investment banks actually have no knowledge about the financial markets. Take melbourne uni's head of actuarial studies as an example, he was a graduate of MIT with a full score in Pure Mathematics, did not study any commerce related subjects but was immediately hired as the head of actuarial studies. My uncle got a PhD @ melbourne uni for applied mathematics and is now a CEO of a major investment company in Shanghai. This is not to say everyone who does a hard course such as theoretical physics or pure mathematics and ends up with insane grades will be hired, most of the time they will because of what you have said, rather harshly:
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
Getting good grades is important, especially if you are looking for employment within the fields of investment, banking, risk insurance etc. However, your intelligence is not the only thing which employers will look for, what's the point of being able to predict risk with the most amazing mathematical models if you can't explain in English how your model works and what it predicts exactly?
But your last sentence seems to suggest people who do Arts are not capable individuals. Well certainly if they did Arts (assuming they have no mathematical ability) will never get employed within the financial sector but that does not render them to be unintelligent individuals. They could excel in other areas in which people who do science will never be able to achieve and end up getting employed. Look @ Lang Lang, one of the most predominant pianists of the 21st century, he earns shitloads as a performer, did he accomplish H1 grades @ uni? I don't even think he did any subjects rather practise piano all day. Is he unintelligent? No, his intelligence can clearly be seen through his piano playing. Did he fall into the category of doing Arts at university? Yes, early in his career he studied at the Beijing music conservatory and music falls under the category of Arts.
You could say that most people who were "conned into taking this stuff signals that [they] are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence." but you certainly can not generalise this and say ALL as counter examples do exist.
-
The final paragraph of your rant renders that entire post worthless.
Anybody who honestly believes that subjects falling into the category of arts are useless clearly desperately lacks true intelligence and has an extremely narrow, sheltered worldview. Therefore, their opinions are not worth taking into account.
peaking of which, Kevin Rudd had a BA in Chinese Studies.
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
who are you to decide what a 'proper' subject is???
-
First thing i will like to say is Eriny, your writing is awesome. Second thing is yea academic transcripts play a part for employment to an extent maybe getting your first serious job when you have no prior experience or those specialists jobs (in the academia field, like research).
But i agree with Eriny, grades are not the essence of getting a job they might not even consider it as a factor sometimes. Like i know for a fact that when 2 people are going for the same job, past experience plays a big part. Also an interview is very important as well to judge character.
-
peaking of which, Kevin Rudd had a BA in Chinese Studies.
I would rather line up at Centrelink for the rest of my life than be remotely similar to Kevin Rudd.
-
Then you better starve yourself to death because last time I checked Kevin Rudd eats food.
-
You could say that most people who were "conned into taking this stuff signals that [they] are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence." but you certainly can not generalise this and say ALL as counter examples do exist.
I wanted to add that I don't even think that saying "most" arts grads are unsuitable to be in a position of any consequence. Especially if you consider that in North America, Arts is the degree that most people actually get. Policy-makers, diplomats, translators, journalists, etc. tend to be Arts graduates.
-
You could say that most people who were "conned into taking this stuff signals that [they] are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence." but you certainly can not generalise this and say ALL as counter examples do exist.
I wanted to add that I don't even think that saying "most" arts grads are unsuitable to be in a position of any consequence. Especially if you consider that in North America, Arts is the degree that most people actually get. Policy-makers, diplomats, translators, journalists, etc. tend to be Arts graduates.
Yeah, I totally agree, I didn't really like the way I put that, I was just trying to put Pappa-Bohr's post into a less harsher tone. :S
-
Don't really see why you are qualified to make this post actually.
Since when does someone need a qualification to make a post other than basic literacy and access to a computer?
I just mean that someone in a recruitment agency or the like would be more qualified to actually tell us what matters to employers.
-
Being successful in uni does not equate to being successful in the workforce. Uni doesn't teach you anything about the real world. Your university degrees are not technical skills required to perform the job in the work force. If there is an applicant who can do the job better than you, then he will get the job. However, if there are two newly-graduated graduates applying for the same job, obviously employers will look at their GPA's and other factors to determine the better graduate. The work force only cares about two things: the skills require to complete the job and any creative input or management skills necessary for the position. I am aware that there are around 5-10% of jobs that require the educational background of a bachelor, but the majority of the jobs out there don't. The truth is, your worth in the market place is not based on how much educational experience you have but rather on the demand of the market place, your connections, credit and work related skills. From what I know by reading whirlpool forums, most engineering graduates hardly use the knowledge from what they have acquired during their uni years. Even though jobs like civil engineering/electrical are competitive, there is still a skills shortage for civil/electrical engineering jobs across Australia
-
Wow Eriny you're either an idiot, or you're a.., not wait yes it's confirmed you are an idiot.
Lets first separate out the two types of university students, those who do proper subjects, and those who are conned into doing 'Arts'.
Now lets look at the former category first:
Several thousand students graduate each year and enter the job market, whether it be in law or finance or science or whatever, and there is a huge information asymmetry problem, firms wants to hire the most intelligent/competent people, but everyone has an incentive to say that their 'the smartest most competent person', thus merely asking them to answer 'tell us why we should hire you' type questions is useless, everyone will lie.
i.e Although the students may know their own level of intelligence/competency, from the point of view of the firms, this information is hidden.
How do student's go about revealing this information? Answer, they use signaling (see Michael Spence (1973). "Job Market Signaling" http://www.jstor.org/pss/1882010).
Why do you think Hedge funds and investment banks hire Maths and physics PhD's? Hint: it's not because they know anything about financial markets.
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
The real world evidence strongly supports this view, academic transcript serve as the primary criterion for determining PhD or post grad funding/admissions, (Funding for Masters scholarships at Melb uni is literally determined by ranking students in terms of their grades), likewise, applicants to big companies (Law firms, banks, etc) are automatically listed (the application is usually done online) in order of their grades.
Now, of course, high grades are not a sufficient condition for a successful graduate placement, other hidden information, like 'communication skills' must also be signaled (this is usually done by asking for a photo, fobs will be screened out here ).
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
Quite an economist's view on this topic. While you do have some good points, the way you separate those who do arts and those who don't is too harsh. First I agree with you (not entirely) on the fact that people who often get hired by investment banks actually have no knowledge about the financial markets. Take melbourne uni's head of actuarial studies as an example, he was a graduate of MIT with a full score in Pure Mathematics, did not study any commerce related subjects but was immediately hired as the head of actuarial studies. My uncle got a PhD @ melbourne uni for applied mathematics and is now a CEO of a major investment company in Shanghai. This is not to say everyone who does a hard course such as theoretical physics or pure mathematics and ends up with insane grades will be hired, most of the time they will because of what you have said, rather harshly:
(It pretty much boils down to the fact unintelligent peoples cannot accomplish H1's in hard subjects, thus getting a H1 in a hard/proper subject signals that your not an idiot)
Getting good grades is important, especially if you are looking for employment within the fields of investment, banking, risk insurance etc. However, your intelligence is not the only thing which employers will look for, what's the point of being able to predict risk with the most amazing mathematical models if you can't explain in English how your model works and what it predicts exactly?
But your last sentence seems to suggest people who do Arts are not capable individuals. Well certainly if they did Arts (assuming they have no mathematical ability) will never get employed within the financial sector but that does not render them to be unintelligent individuals. They could excel in other areas in which people who do science will never be able to achieve and end up getting employed. Look @ Lang Lang, one of the most predominant pianists of the 21st century, he earns shitloads as a performer, did he accomplish H1 grades @ uni? I don't even think he did any subjects rather practise piano all day. Is he unintelligent? No, his intelligence can clearly be seen through his piano playing. Did he fall into the category of doing Arts at university? Yes, early in his career he studied at the Beijing music conservatory and music falls under the category of Arts.
You could say that most people who were "conned into taking this stuff signals that [they] are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence." but you certainly can not generalise this and say ALL as counter examples do exist.
I don't know which part you consider to be an economist's view. The lecturer of introductory microeconomics at melbourne has an arts degree with a major in economics and then a PhD in economics from Yale. Quite a number of economists have arts degrees.
But if you were referring to the earlier part then I see what you mean.
-
Don't really see why you are qualified to make this post actually.
Since when does someone need a qualification to make a post other than basic literacy and access to a computer?
I just mean that someone in a recruitment agency or the like would be more qualified to actually tell us what matters to employers.
Given that nobody on VN is a recruitment officer (as far as I know), I really don't know what you are expecting. Just because I'm not an 'expert' doesn't mean that what I'm saying is untrue anyway. Besides, this thread was actually based on a conversation I had with someone who works at the Careers Centre at my university (which I did allude to), who definitely would have a good idea.
-
Hi, so what's this I here about 'proper subjects'? Check out the nice documentary, Decadence
-
thanks. nice to be reminded of that show, as impractical as pria's hopes for reform are.
-
whoa, a lot of half wits in this thread.
I never said all people who studied 'Arts' are unintelligent, it's just that 'Art's' subjects, 'Gender studies', 'politics', etc have no signaling value in a job market rife with asymmetric information, if you don't understand this, then you don't understand it.
Also I'm not talking about "arts' degrees, which can be very broad, but 'arts' subjects.
I find it nauseating when people cite the very existence of politicians and writers and artists as 'proof' that 'arts' subjects are useful and worthwhile, but such statements are to be expected from people who pay money to learn 'creative writing'.
(Note, multiple scientific studies have shown people who feel they need to 'be taught' creativity do so because they have none)
-
I don't know much about Arts; what's the difference between "Arts subjects" and subjects in an "Arts degree" ? are logic, linguistics and languages "Arts subjects" like creative writing?
-
I want to see these studies that attempt to quantify (and absolutely define) "creativity". Please post them or paper titles/authors and I'll find them myself
-
I never said all people who studied 'Arts' are unintelligent...
Now lets consider the latter category: 'Arts' (think gender studies, social work studies, creative writing, philosophy, Eng Lit, etc).
Oh wait, by the very fact you were conned into taking this stuff signals you are not suitable for a position in which one has to make decisions of any consequence.
So, what's the difference?
I find it nauseating when people cite the very existence of politicians and writers and artists as 'proof' that 'arts' subjects are useful and worthwhile, but such statements are to be expected from people who pay money to learn 'creative writing'.
Really? Or are the arguments 'nauseating' because it shows that Arts grads can clearly make 'decisions of consequence'?
-
Backtracking fail :) now who's unintelligent?