I have often wondered if anyone has tried to save their acceptance letters from colleges they couldn’t afford to go to and show them to employers. Why doesn’t this work?
I also wondered, in those years when I was offered two different fellowships and could only accept one according to the rules, why I couldn’t put both on my CV. I have, however, very occasionally seen people do this.
Because getting into college isn’t a very good signal. People may use it as one if they’re not thinking things through, but not if you call their attention to it. It’s not a very good signal because it’s based on high school (a long time ago) and judged clumsily by admission officers under poor circumstances.
Graduating is more of a signal, at least if the college is willing to flunk people. Graduating with difficult electives on your transcript is even more of a signal.
And college isn’t just signalling. One is expected to have learned there.
So if what’s being said here about graduation from Harvard being highly correlated with admission to it (um… no, that’s not quite what I mean… but you know what I mean) is true, does it follow that getting into Harvard is a good signal?
Don’t expect people to be consistent or logical in how they interpret signals (also, suppose they don’t believe higher ed is pure signaling with no value—this is a legitimate out given by dspeyer—all those impressive Harvard grads they’ve seen were made impressive by the awesome Harvard teachers).
If so the many online learning organizations that sprang up this year seem well positioned to greatly weaken the university system. I’m sceptical that they will. To the first approximation college isn’t about education. I however do agree with this:
One is expected to have learned there.
Employers indeed do. This doesn’t mean they are right though. Educated people generally don’t overtly say college is about signalling, especially if they did well in it. The Universities selling their degrees want to emphasise the value added part and how the 4 year summer camp is a life enriching experience. Parents tend to think they are buying credentials for their children’s future employment.
I think we have better reasons to trust the parents on this, their incentives seem closer to truth seeking. Thought due to the changes in the past 40 years they are somewhat deluded on how much credentials from a second or third tier college buys you as well as generally underestimating the final cost.
If so the many online learning organizations that sprang up this year seem well positioned to greatly weaken the university system.
How do you learn how to (say) operate scintillators and photomultiplier tubes from online learning organizations? There are skills you just can’t practice without hands-on experience. (OTOH I can’t see any good reason why in-person attendance would be vital for studying for a degree in English literature, but then again AFAIK attendance is not usually compulsory in such courses. I’d bet the reason why people don’t learn stuff online and only show up for exams is that that way it’s harder to convince your parents to pay for your rent in another town while you’re partying most nights.)
The fictional college of the article only selects incoming students on price.
I have often wondered if anyone has tried to save their acceptance letters from colleges they couldn’t afford to go to and show them to employers. Why doesn’t this work?
I also wondered, in those years when I was offered two different fellowships and could only accept one according to the rules, why I couldn’t put both on my CV. I have, however, very occasionally seen people do this.
Because getting into college isn’t a very good signal. People may use it as one if they’re not thinking things through, but not if you call their attention to it. It’s not a very good signal because it’s based on high school (a long time ago) and judged clumsily by admission officers under poor circumstances.
Graduating is more of a signal, at least if the college is willing to flunk people. Graduating with difficult electives on your transcript is even more of a signal.
And college isn’t just signalling. One is expected to have learned there.
So if what’s being said here about graduation from Harvard being highly correlated with admission to it (um… no, that’s not quite what I mean… but you know what I mean) is true, does it follow that getting into Harvard is a good signal?
Don’t expect people to be consistent or logical in how they interpret signals (also, suppose they don’t believe higher ed is pure signaling with no value—this is a legitimate out given by dspeyer—all those impressive Harvard grads they’ve seen were made impressive by the awesome Harvard teachers).
If so the many online learning organizations that sprang up this year seem well positioned to greatly weaken the university system. I’m sceptical that they will. To the first approximation college isn’t about education. I however do agree with this:
Employers indeed do. This doesn’t mean they are right though. Educated people generally don’t overtly say college is about signalling, especially if they did well in it. The Universities selling their degrees want to emphasise the value added part and how the 4 year summer camp is a life enriching experience. Parents tend to think they are buying credentials for their children’s future employment.
I think we have better reasons to trust the parents on this, their incentives seem closer to truth seeking. Thought due to the changes in the past 40 years they are somewhat deluded on how much credentials from a second or third tier college buys you as well as generally underestimating the final cost.
You’re clearly not talking about a degree such as engineering—unless you’re talking about a summer camp run by sadists.
You’re clearly not talking about a degree such as engineering—unless you’re talking about a summer camp run by sadists.
How do you learn how to (say) operate scintillators and photomultiplier tubes from online learning organizations? There are skills you just can’t practice without hands-on experience. (OTOH I can’t see any good reason why in-person attendance would be vital for studying for a degree in English literature, but then again AFAIK attendance is not usually compulsory in such courses. I’d bet the reason why people don’t learn stuff online and only show up for exams is that that way it’s harder to convince your parents to pay for your rent in another town while you’re partying most nights.)
Because you would show the degree, if anything.