Because dropouts usually haven’t gotten what they came for?
Good point. I think I was implicitly thinking about the kind of dropouts in my social circles, but of course the sheepskin effect is primarily about more “normal” dropouts.
I think you are underselling the ‘norm’ theory here
Re your original point, though: when I said that the sheepskin effect weighs against the “learning professional norms” hypothesis, I specifically meant the learning professional norms (as human capital) hypothesis. This is distinct from the signaling professionalism hypothesis.
The former predicts that employers should favor students based on how much they’ve learned about professional norms (which shouldn’t have any sharp discontinuities as a function of time spent at college). The latter predicts that employers should favor students who signal professionalism through things like graduating. (Of course you could have a combination of the two, but then it’d still only be the latter that contributes to the sheepskin effect.)
Good point. I think I was implicitly thinking about the kind of dropouts in my social circles, but of course the sheepskin effect is primarily about more “normal” dropouts.
Re your original point, though: when I said that the sheepskin effect weighs against the “learning professional norms” hypothesis, I specifically meant the learning professional norms (as human capital) hypothesis. This is distinct from the signaling professionalism hypothesis.
The former predicts that employers should favor students based on how much they’ve learned about professional norms (which shouldn’t have any sharp discontinuities as a function of time spent at college). The latter predicts that employers should favor students who signal professionalism through things like graduating. (Of course you could have a combination of the two, but then it’d still only be the latter that contributes to the sheepskin effect.)