Comment by randomdata | Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomdata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 9 times out of 10, your advice would fare better

Not according to the data. There is absolutely no period where general college attainment has shown to improve mobility when as compared to equivalent people without college attainment.

What the data does show is a tendency for those with the capability to successfully complete college to have greater mobility when as compared to dissimilar people (i.e. those hindered by disabilities), but it is faulty to attribute that to college. Clearly it is the life challenges that hold people back. It is not the lack of a degree that keeps the down syndrome kid from being considered 'management material'.

There is a stronger case to be made for high school attainment, but even that is no doubt confounded by the rise of industrialization showing up at the same time, providing new mobility opportunities. The meaningful gains in high school attainment we have seen over the last 20 years have not translated to improved mobility for that subset of the population.

>What the data does show is a tendency for those with the capability to successfully complete college to have greater mobility

From the perspective of the company, if the only way to have a signal on this is via a degree, and you have two identical candidates otherwise, which one are you choosing?

If you have two identical candidates except one took the bus to the interview and the other showed up in a Ferrari, which one are you choosing?

That's right, the one with the Ferrari. But that is a game you, the worker, don't want to start playing. You will lose in the end.

I bought some new windows for my house a couple of years ago. I rejected the company who sent a salesman in a flash car purely because of the car.

True. We've probably forgotten with the employment market having been strong for a long time, leaving employers desperate to accept anyone they can get, but back in the day degree holders were often rejected because of their degree too. "Overqualified", as employers liked to put it. In other words, "Your flashy 'car' doesn't impress me."

But either way, the takeaway is clear: If you are the worker, you don't want to get caught playing that game. You will lose in the end.

I don't know. Sports cars are notorious money sinks. The person who took the bus might be more financially prudent.

> Sports cars are notorious money sinks.

To be fair, a Ferrari will normally retain its value, assuming you don't damage it. A degree on the other hand, even with the utmost extreme care, becomes worthless the day you drive it off the lot. Guaranteed. In fact, it is likely less than worthless as you will no doubt have to pay someone to dispose of the piece of paper for you.

So, yes, you make a good point. The employer is, all else equal, most definitely not selecting the degree holder if hiring is done based on financial resolve. Imagine dumping all those resources into a degree that has no resale value – literally worthless – only to apply to a job that identical people without degrees are also applying to. Not a display of financial literacy, that is for sure.

The car doesn't tell you anything about their capability. Successfully getting a hard degree does.

The people are identical. You already know they have equal capability.

You, the employer, are just performing a coin flip to choose, albeit using a medium that is not an actual coin. Using up precious resources to weight the coin in your favour as the worker might find short-term gain, but you will lose in the end. The data around this is abundantly clear.

Those who actually succeed long-term find a way to leverage their resources to ensure that they are not identical to the other guy – but to become one who is better. Distracting yourself by the coin flip is a recipe for failure, as we see time and time again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com