Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubano | Hacker News Reader

I've become more and more convinced over the years that "higher education" is much more about signalling and not-so-much about learning, although of course part of the signal is showing your ability to learn on demand and just "show-up" and do what you are told.

Of course, networking has always been a big part of the benefit being accepted to an elite university, so while I accept the learning part of it will be easily disrupted, I am not really convinced (yet) that the signalling and the networking can be replaced so easily.

[edits]

View on HN

Admission is literal supply & demand. You have a limited number of spots at Harvard and Stanford every year, and >10x the applicants for each spot. Their criteria for admission is therefore much more stringent than if you have 1.5x-2x times the applicants per spot. The institution feeds the student body which feed the institution. Many students apply to these schools because their prestige and rank and the schools can therefore be selective of their student body.

Admissions at Harvard or Stanford doesn't use a random number generator to determine admissions after a 'meets minimum requirements' filter. It would be as if a student got accepted to Harvard, Stanford, MIT, 5 state schools and 10 community colleges and then used a coin flip to determine where to go.

My university just allows anyone into first semester, but then has quite hard courses and exams there already – by the end of the second semester, 90% have already failed.

That’s another way to solve the >10x applicants issue.

That's actually a genius way to reduce administrative overhead as well. Problem is that the exams select only for people that are good at taking exams. Not always the most interesting/well rounded students.

It's the best solution yet — going by entrance exams prefers those who already have knowledge, going by SAT is completely unfair, etc.

My university (at least the engineering department, but I think all the STEM departments) uses a weighting scheme to adjust grades. They look at the average that students from that school gets after the first year and adjusts the entrance grades down accordingly. So, if a student who had a 95% average coming out of high school went to a school where people generally had about a 75% after first year and an entrance average of 90%, you'd reduce that student's entrance average by 15% so they'd count as having an 80% for comparison to other students. It's not quite as simple as this as the calculations are more detailed (one needs to account for comparing courses and schools with no or few previous students), but it's roughly the idea.

With this scheme, if a school inflates their grades it will have a larger adjustment down. It's entirely based on past performance of people from the school, so there's no standardized tests to worry about. Theoretically, one could have an adjustment upwards, but I've never heard of it happening (I participated in department meetings where they discussed admissions in general). The adjustments are usually somewhere between 20 and mid to high 20s percent. Some are higher (not many), but a few are lower but not by much.

It's important to note signaling works both ways. Many people bin 'Ivy' resume’s for a variety of reasons.

Reputation is also very fluid over time, Yale arguably took a big if likely short term hit from George W. Bush. Of course with 5 presidents Yale clearly has some serious connections.

I have even seen things swing both ways as schools are looked at as a great talent source. This lets less capable people in on reputation. Resulting in a backlash where people think X is overrated.

PS: Don't forget the supply of Genius is smaller than the number of slots at top schools and many of them take other paths. So, you got a pool that's above average, but not that far above average.

Can you provide an example of "many people 'binning' Ivy resumes?" I'd also request evidence that reputation is fluid in the field of education, because this seems patently contradicted by the facts. Especially in education, there is a strong network effect catalyzed by one simple notion -- the oldest universities have had the most time to accumulate capital. They deploy this capital to attract the best students (financial aid, facilities) and the best professors (endowed professorships, grants, facilities).

Working in concert and amplifying each other over time, these factors are responsible, ultimately, for creating the benefits that we all perceive as intrinsic to an Ivy League education -- namely, engaging and networking with lots of smart and motivated peers and mentors.

I have actually seen this happen.

In the private sector there is a bias to cut out overqualified candidates ex: MS or several years experience for entry level work. The assumption is someone may need a job now in a downturn, but that would move on quickly or have higher salary expectations.

Asking about it someone also said "People also flat out lie which makes a significant qualification / role mismatch suspicious."

And finally, I suspect there may be some jealousy involved.

It's more than getting in, it's networking and having the recruiters from all of the bulge-bracket and consulting firms groom you. Why recruit someone online when you have a rich, educated, smart pool of candidates who have the elitist mindset necessary to do the job? They haven't found a way to replace eating clubs.

> Why recruit someone online when you have a rich, educated, smart pool of candidates who have the elitist mindset necessary to do the job?

Because everyone else is farming the same universities, making these candidates overpriced. Google and other tech companies have considerably widened their net, when they could no longer rely on Stanford et al alone.

Networks are correlated with success, or at least that was one of the messages I got from reading Outliers (I could be wrong).

As for the 4-yr university degree, it's always been more about discipline than anything else. A completed degree is as you say - a signal for discipline - which is probably why more and more employers are caring less about the exact type of degree, and more about whether it was "quantitative".

> that "higher education" is much more about signalling and not-so-much about learning

This is highly dependent on the field. (see mechanical engineering), but you are also correct in that is signals this person has the ability, dedication and perseverance to learn complex tasks and items for an extended period of time (in terms of IT/tech).

Yes interesting...I almost received a degree in computer engineering in 1988 from a highly regarded technical university.

Back then, there was absolutely no substitute for the in-house training I got from going to classes and doing my homework and taking the test etc etc...

Today, I am far from convinced that people cannot simple learn the informational part of it all through (yes albeit intense) online courses, videos, and training.

Do we want people building bridges and building without proving they understand their static and dynamic physics and structural limitations of materials and such??

Of course not...but these things can be solved via various technical means that do not necessarily require sitting in real-world, outdated classrooms.

Networking is not a big part of getting accepted to an elite university. Harvard, Yale, etc, are chock-full of first generation or second generation immigrants who have little in the way of networks with the sorts of old-money institutional backers of those universities.

I think you're reversing the point. Networking isn't a requirement to get into an elite university. Rather, the ability to network with other people going to an elite university is one of the most significant benefits of being accepted.

No I'm not talking about the getting-in part, I'm talking about the once-you-are-there part and the deep social connections that can be made by sharing real-world experiences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com