>It might signal you have some skills, because you were able to get into a good university and had the willpower and intelligence required to pass all the courses
Yes, immensely so. But the word for that is not "signalling" (even less so within a false dichotomy with "human capital building") -- the word for it is "filtering". "Filtering…
>It might signal you have some skills, because you were able to get into a good university and had the willpower and intelligence required to pass all the courses
Yes, immensely so. But the word for that is not "signalling" (even less so within a false dichotomy with "human capital building") -- the word for it is "filtering". "Filtering" in a world where not all people were created equal, and where the employers are looking for a subset-of-all-people that was *filtered* in a very particular fashion.
The word "signalling" implies superficiality and shallowness, often with hypocrisy mixed in. It is adequately applied to Hollywood stars in gated mansions with bespoke private security tweeting about defunding the police.
The word "filtering" is *anything but* shallow. What do those employers who have their head screwed on right, really wish to filter for? Don't take it from me, take it from Spolsky and his hiring advice for software companies: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-interviewing-version-30/ To spare you a long (and very good) read, it is two things. In Spolsky's words, "a) Smart, and b) Gets things done."
In your own words above, it is *precisely* the combination of a) intelligence, and b) willpower. Spolsky lays out all the reasons why an employer must look for both a) + b). There is an abundance of people who are intelligent but without particular willpower, and also an abundance of people with willpower but without particular intelligence -- and a discerning employer will not wish to hire any of them, as Spolsky elaborates.
Any additional "human capital development" that the schooling might or might not have instilled, is a nice-to-have. Whereas the a)+b) is a must-have. The value of an educational degree had, until relatively recently, indeed been proof of you having passed a solid filter for intelligence and willpower both.
The segments of modern academia that are overrun by wokeness have annihilated both of those long-standing foundations. Its coddling of students all but eliminates the filtering on willpower. Its introduction of dogmatic doctrines (which "challenge preconceptions" without ever allowing *themselves* to be challenged) is simply doing away with filtering for intelligence, replacing it by filtering for blithe conformism. In short, they are making academia and its titles to stop having any practical value to employers.
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Fine, agreed that the meaning of "signalling" in economic context does correspond to the usage made in the OP, even if the meaning of "signalling" in social context does not.
Outside of specialized contexts, the word "signalling" has the mundane connotation of communication, in which a sender has the agency and freedom to pick any kind of signal to send. While applying for a job, I can freely "signal" that I naturally prioritize the robustness of the work over the deadline, or naturally prioritize the deadline over the robustness of the work, or whatever I judge would be the most adequate signal to send in the circumstance, but I am not free to "signal" that I have a Cambridge MSc if I don't have one. Such a degree effectively *is* a filter. A person may have the agency to communicate a signal of their choosing, but not to be passed by a given filter.
Why raise all this; the premise of the article is virtually grounded on the "mundane" meaning of signalling, while purporting to refer to the "economic" meaning. It's like, if we prove that education is "just" signalling, then it has no true value. On the contrary! The "no true value" conclusion is false, and its falsity is easier to grasp if we replace "signalling" with "filtering". To the degree that the filtering is indeed centered around the combination of intelligence and willpower - the "Smart, and gets things done" in Spolsky terms - its true value is huge. Getting into university is primarily a filter on intelligence. Finishing its studies is a filter on intelligence and willpower both.
It's *really costly* for the knowledge-based industries to sift people in the way that academia could and should have sifted them beforehand. Whereas, if academia *stops* being a filter for intelligence-combined-with-willpower, then it indeed becomes harder to refute the "no true value" assessment.
>It might signal you have some skills, because you were able to get into a good university and had the willpower and intelligence required to pass all the courses
Yes, immensely so. But the word for that is not "signalling" (even less so within a false dichotomy with "human capital building") -- the word for it is "filtering". "Filtering" in a world where not all people were created equal, and where the employers are looking for a subset-of-all-people that was *filtered* in a very particular fashion.
The word "signalling" implies superficiality and shallowness, often with hypocrisy mixed in. It is adequately applied to Hollywood stars in gated mansions with bespoke private security tweeting about defunding the police.
The word "filtering" is *anything but* shallow. What do those employers who have their head screwed on right, really wish to filter for? Don't take it from me, take it from Spolsky and his hiring advice for software companies: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-interviewing-version-30/ To spare you a long (and very good) read, it is two things. In Spolsky's words, "a) Smart, and b) Gets things done."
In your own words above, it is *precisely* the combination of a) intelligence, and b) willpower. Spolsky lays out all the reasons why an employer must look for both a) + b). There is an abundance of people who are intelligent but without particular willpower, and also an abundance of people with willpower but without particular intelligence -- and a discerning employer will not wish to hire any of them, as Spolsky elaborates.
Any additional "human capital development" that the schooling might or might not have instilled, is a nice-to-have. Whereas the a)+b) is a must-have. The value of an educational degree had, until relatively recently, indeed been proof of you having passed a solid filter for intelligence and willpower both.
The segments of modern academia that are overrun by wokeness have annihilated both of those long-standing foundations. Its coddling of students all but eliminates the filtering on willpower. Its introduction of dogmatic doctrines (which "challenge preconceptions" without ever allowing *themselves* to be challenged) is simply doing away with filtering for intelligence, replacing it by filtering for blithe conformism. In short, they are making academia and its titles to stop having any practical value to employers.
I'm not convinced that the word 'signalling' does imply superficiality or hypocrisy or anything like that - it's just a term from contract theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Fine, agreed that the meaning of "signalling" in economic context does correspond to the usage made in the OP, even if the meaning of "signalling" in social context does not.
Outside of specialized contexts, the word "signalling" has the mundane connotation of communication, in which a sender has the agency and freedom to pick any kind of signal to send. While applying for a job, I can freely "signal" that I naturally prioritize the robustness of the work over the deadline, or naturally prioritize the deadline over the robustness of the work, or whatever I judge would be the most adequate signal to send in the circumstance, but I am not free to "signal" that I have a Cambridge MSc if I don't have one. Such a degree effectively *is* a filter. A person may have the agency to communicate a signal of their choosing, but not to be passed by a given filter.
Why raise all this; the premise of the article is virtually grounded on the "mundane" meaning of signalling, while purporting to refer to the "economic" meaning. It's like, if we prove that education is "just" signalling, then it has no true value. On the contrary! The "no true value" conclusion is false, and its falsity is easier to grasp if we replace "signalling" with "filtering". To the degree that the filtering is indeed centered around the combination of intelligence and willpower - the "Smart, and gets things done" in Spolsky terms - its true value is huge. Getting into university is primarily a filter on intelligence. Finishing its studies is a filter on intelligence and willpower both.
It's *really costly* for the knowledge-based industries to sift people in the way that academia could and should have sifted them beforehand. Whereas, if academia *stops* being a filter for intelligence-combined-with-willpower, then it indeed becomes harder to refute the "no true value" assessment.