Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottlocklin | Hacker News Reader

What do you do with the people who are too dumb to go to college?

Serious question; one that seems to get left out among the college educated who are running the place. It's like basketball players assuming everyone is over 6 feet tall and athletic.

View on HN

Simple: you dumb college down.

If college is the new high school, then college becomes a default path that is more valued for its socialization experience than for academic knowledge imparted. And like AP classes in high school, you have hard majors where the "life of mind" is taught, and push the smart kids to go into those.

Don't know if you're serious, but there's a problem here: an enormous rent, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, is now being extracted from the students sent in for "socialization" -- both in direct costs to the college, and indirectly in the reduction of their earning potential during those years. Furthermore, it is being extracted specifically from a class of people who probably have a hard time laying their hands on that money, and being paid to already upper-class people. We managed to socialize ourselves in the past just fine without doing this.

"Free" college, by the way, does not solve this problem; all it does is slightly improve the lot of the poor by instead spreading the rent over the class of all taxpayers, while making the payouts to an unproductive administrative class even bigger. I suspect the second part explains the popularity of this idea among the administrative class, though.

I'm confused about calling student loans "socializing". This seems like an essence of American capitalism. Elsewhere, in more "socialized" parts of the world, college is free and total costs are nowhere near that of the US, because it's much less profitable for rent-seekers to set up shop where there isn't much money flowing.

Different kind of socializing, I imagine. The sort of training-wheels for life as a real adult that college tends to be. With all the "networking", which usually manifests as getting blackout drunk on cheap alcohol and bad weed three or four nights a week.

Of course...

I think everyone should have to spend the first 40 years of their life in some kind of government run institution being learned....

Only then can they be true productive members of society...

This is an insane answer, I know.

When we're at a point in the super far future when automation does everything that a below average intelligence human can do, maybe we could raise the average. Maybe through genetic engineering offspring.

How insane is that I wonder?

OK, put it a different way: if society requires you have an IQ of 115 to make a decent living, what are you going to do with the people with IQ scores below 115? It's pretty much the same statement as above, minus the apparently confusing mention of college.

College is already dumbed down.

IMO, what people with a 100 IQ can do, and what people with 115 can do isn't that significant. 100 IQ people can be better at some things than people with 115 IQ.

We've kind of made a fetish of IQ without really understanding intelligence to begin with.

You just wind up giving dumb people a degree. The better solution is to make it illegal for employers to ask about college/post college education, except for perhaps certain fields like law or medicine (though the relevant licenses should really suffice in those cases).

Colleges will never make dumb people into smart people who can solve problems independently. People who can solve problems and innovate are the only ones who will succeed in the new economy. I know CS grads with shiny new graduate-level degrees who can't even solve problems, they need to be told exactly what to do from a technical perspective to solve a business problem (e.g. if the boss is asking you for data on X, you'll need to write a SQL query into Y and Z databases (which they already knew existed), and then put the results into a graph in Excel).

How would this work in practice? Job seekers would still be allowed to advertise their education, and surely nearly all would. Wouldn't employers just pass over candidates who didn't?

That's a fair point. My knee jerk reaction is to say well, prohibit discussion of education then... Kind of like how parental status, race and in some places criminal history, can only be discussed after a certain stage of the hiring process.

On the other hand maybe it'll weed out things like QSR managers who were asking for degrees at the peek of the recession just because they could.

First, I'd question the use of the word 'dumb'. That said, I think the question is worth some thought. My thought on the matter is that there are plenty of vital roles that don't depend on college, e.g. plumbers, fire fighters, and many kinds of heath care and service sector roles. College might be best suited for those who deal in abstractions... but there are plenty of necessary concrete jobs as well.

>but there are plenty of necessary concrete jobs as well.

Fewer and fewer of them unfortunately. Just wait until self-driving trucks put 5 million truck drivers out of work...

Very. Long. Wait.

There will have to be more of them than college jobs, as there are more people with "less than college" smarts. Those jobs don't seem to have materialized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com