The Myth of a Good Education

[TrueTears]

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

[darlok]

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.

[RainerWolfram]

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

[schmalex]

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.

[Eriny]

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.

[kamil9876]

Hi, so what's this I here about 'proper subjects'? Check out the nice documentary, Decadence

[binders]

thanks. nice to be reminded of that show, as impractical as pria's hopes for reform are.
 

[Pappa-Bohr]

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)

[binders]

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?

[Russ]

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

[Eriny]

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'?

[ninwa]

Backtracking fail now who's unintelligent?