What will an IU diploma be worth in 10 years?

[Hohn]

Folks, any college degree in 10 years is nearly worthless. It exist to place you on a career track. Once you’re ten years down that track, nobody cares about what school you went to; they care about what you did in the decade since.

which means that unless you are getting a degree that places you in a track well worth the expense, then skip college and learn to weld.

 

[jamil]

If that were the case, we'd not be having the discussion and certain races wouldn't be over represented, would we? It's a multifacted issue and one that I don't think the brevity of a forum can really flesh out, which is why I mentioned the book above. In short, how we measure IQ, SAT scores, etc. does not result in an even distribution and does not equate (predict, to an extent, but not equate) to success of either the individual or group. The introduction of other criteria beyond simply an SAT score or IQ score acknowledges that.

University of Chicago, 3rd leading producer of Nobel Laureates in the US and 4th globally (Yale is 11th), has a special admissions process for rural students, including free travel to the school and free summer programs for rural high schoolers.



Is that wrong? If we take two people who are in every other aspect identical and educate one in a defunct coal mining town and another in a college prep high school in a wealthy district, would we expect them to test the same? Would we declare the second smarter because they test better or would we recognize that their experience/exposure has given them a head start but both are equally capable if given the same opportunity? How do we expect to revitalize areas of the nation left behind if we don't give at least some of the population the chance to overcome that head start?

Why do we not see the same outrage porn over rural/small town kids getting extra attention? It doesn't sell as well as promoting racial division, probably.

I don't think the issue is as simple as many would make it. It's easy to write it off as just more PC nonsense, and in fairness I did at first and for quite awhile. When you look beyond the headlines and see the reasoning of the proponents of such approaches, even if you don't agree with them, it's apparent it's a more multi-faceted issue then it would appear in the sound bite culture wars version.

I used IQ just to represent the minimum capability of students required to be successful. There's not a strong correlation between IQ and SAT/ACT. As I said earlier there's more correlation at the ends of the bell curve than in the middle. IQ tests, however, are reliable across cultures. SAT/ACT not as much. My point was just that I disagreed that we can't have diverse 150s. If a university decides that it wants to teach the best of the best, they need to make their curriculum to be really, really hard. So then They'll need an admission process that selects the people who can make it through the rigor. Background has something to do with that, at least in terms of work ethic. But there's only so much you can do with work ethic. The hardest working 120 IQ students won't make it through coursework designed for 150 IQ students. I don't think GPA alone, or SAT/ACT alone, can select the students who can be successful.

And IQ is, for the most part, evenly distributed, or evenly enough distributed for intents and purposes. About University of Chicago's recruitment, that's probably a good way to find the 150 IQ students, or 120, or whatever is the tier of a particular university. That sounds like the approach consistent with what I suggested. Don't water down the standards. Don't select by immutable characteristics. But do find ways to flatten out the opportunities for as many students as possible. If the university caters to 150s they shouldn't have to lower the bar just so that they can get the demographics they want.

I think it's a great idea to go recruit in the underprivileged areas, whether inner city or rural areas, to find and give those 150s a shot. And I've been talking about the top tier colleges. Same thing for average colleges too. If a college is going to have a good reputation it has to perform. No grade inflation. Reasonably rigorous curriculum. Not everyone can handle that. Admissions should be designed to match students with the curriculum, and not match demographics with curriculum.

About PC, University of Chicago has a really good reputation and they don't seem to be eaten up with political correctness. Yet. That doesn't mean there aren't colleges eaten up with political correctness to the point where they behave as if diversity is everything. Like the infamous Evergreen College. I think if a competitive college admits 120s just for the sake of diversity, when the standard for everyone else is a 150, that's wrong. But I have absolutely no problem with colleges going out to underprivileged areas to find the 150s, or 120s, whatever is their usual standard. And I guess I don't really care how they figure that out. Maybe it's GPA combined with SAT/ACT. Maybe it's an interview. Maybe they can find some other creative way to know that a given student can meet the rigor of their curriculum.

 

[HoughMade]

Folks, any college degree in 10 years is nearly worthless. It exist to place you on a career track. Once you’re ten years down that track, nobody cares about what school you went to; they care about what you did in the decade since.

which means that unless you are getting a degree that places you in a track well worth the expense, then skip college and learn to weld.

My high school diploma made it possible for me to get my college diploma. That made it possible to get my law school diploma. That (oversized and overpriced) diploma made it possible for me to get my license to practice law. THAT is still pretty important, but 2 or 3 years after I got out of law school, all that mattered was my experience, not where, or my grades, in law school. There's a similar story for any career track that required knowledge, skill and experience.

Whatever the steps are to achieve mastery, you can't skip any of them and expect a good result, though in the end, it seems like some steps were a waste.

 

[Hawkeye]

My high school diploma made it possible for me to get my college diploma. That made it possible to get my law school diploma. That (oversized and overpriced) diploma made it possible for me to get my license to practice law. THAT is still pretty important, but 2 or 3 years after I got out of law school, all that mattered was my experience, not where, or my grades, in law school. There's a similar story for any career track that required knowledge, skill and experience.

Whatever the steps are to achieve mastery, you can't skip any of them and expect a good result, though in the end, it seems like some steps were a waste.

I was amazed when ~ 10 years out of law school, I was asked by a legal recruiter what my LSAT score was. Like that is going to tell a firm something real at that point!

 

[jamil]

My high school diploma made it possible for me to get my college diploma. That made it possible to get my law school diploma. That (oversized and overpriced) diploma made it possible for me to get my license to practice law. THAT is still pretty important, but 2 or 3 years after I got out of law school, all that mattered was my experience, not where, or my grades, in law school. There's a similar story for any career track that required knowledge, skill and experience.

Whatever the steps are to achieve mastery, you can't skip any of them and expect a good result, though in the end, it seems like some steps were a waste.

I think we're probably pretty close to the same opinion about that. Sometimes the steps are wasted because we didn't know the most efficient way at the time. When I was young I thought that the academic classes I had to take were a waste of time/money. And many were. But they don't have to be. After it's all said and done, I think my English classes in college helped me become a better communicator than I would have been. My philosophy classes helped me become a better thinker than I would have been. Speech helped me become a better speaker. History classes gave me a broader perspective than I would have had. I think it's best to look at education as an investment. Try to invest in just the things that you're pretty sure will serve you. I didn't do that when I was young, because I didn't think in terms of what would serve me. I just took what I had to and often what I thought was easy.

Anyway, the point is, it's very possible to do my line of work without a degree. You don't need a piece of paper to get a job coding as long as you have certifications and/or the experience in the relevant technologies. But having the degree is more than just the piece of paper. I know plenty of software engineers with no degree who are excellent at writing code. They're not always so good at communicating, or some of the other soft skills. You can become better at any of those soft-skills on the job if you're motivated to do it. But those skills don't tend to get better on their own or through OJT.

If I were advising someone today who wanted a career in Software Engineering, I would still recommend college over certification with no college. You don't need an expensive elite engineer school. Go in-state where you don't have to spend a fortune. There are always at least a couple of bull**** classes everyone has to take. But to the extent you can, make sure every class you you have a choice on, make sure it serves you. Learning to communicate better will serve you. Learning to speak better will serve you. Learning to think more logically will serve you. It's not just the SE classes that serve you. I wish someone had given me that advice years ago because I did waste some steps that I didn't have to waste.

 

[Hohn]

My high school diploma made it possible for me to get my college diploma. That made it possible to get my law school diploma. That (oversized and overpriced) diploma made it possible for me to get my license to practice law. THAT is still pretty important, but 2 or 3 years after I got out of law school, all that mattered was my experience, not where, or my grades, in law school. There's a similar story for any career track that required knowledge, skill and experience.

Whatever the steps are to achieve mastery, you can't skip any of them and expect a good result, though in the end, it seems like some steps were a waste.

Exactly. But I’m also saying that if you don’t ultimately achieve that mastery, the steps *were* a waste. Like spending huge money on a UM or Ivy League law school and never passing the bar exam.

The primary value of any success is the future, larger successes that are enabled. And by extension, if that latter success never comes, it’s just a shame.