How smart do you have to be to get a degree?(cremieux.xyz)
cremieux.xyz
How smart do you have to be to get a degree?
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/education-isnt-what-it-used-to-be
90 comments
Throwaway: I have a PhD in CS, and I wouldn't describe myself as very intelligent. Maybe slightly above average. I am constantly amazed at how quickly others in my team can understand extremely complex mathematical problems in a few seconds. I would need at least an hour of quiet thinking, and I struggled a lot with the mathematical aspects of my PhD. But I did work my ass off for 5 years (mostly out of curiosity, though, there was no family pressure, my father is a builder and my mother worked in a supermarket).
Something I noticed: extremely smart people have a tendency to see a problem and quickly sketch the solution in their head, or sketch a proof that the problem cannot be solved. Their overwhelming life experience is that they are always the most intelligent person in the room and that their intuition is always right, and so they quickly mark this problem as "done" / "boring" / "unsolvable". In contrast, people with curiosity but less intellectual confidence tend to experiment with ideas to see if they would work / why they wouldn't work / if they work to a certain degree. I certainly do, and everything I have ever written a paper about, including my dissertation, was discovered during such experiments. If anything, I have a PhD in intellectual naivety.
I know of several extremely smart people in PhD programs who have not produced anything interesting in years, because they shrug off every problem as trivial, see paper writing as below their dignity, and keep themselves busy with teaching. They seem to wait to be automatically rewarded for their intelligence. After all, that is exactly what happened to them in school, and during their Bachelor/Master studies.
Something I noticed: extremely smart people have a tendency to see a problem and quickly sketch the solution in their head, or sketch a proof that the problem cannot be solved. Their overwhelming life experience is that they are always the most intelligent person in the room and that their intuition is always right, and so they quickly mark this problem as "done" / "boring" / "unsolvable". In contrast, people with curiosity but less intellectual confidence tend to experiment with ideas to see if they would work / why they wouldn't work / if they work to a certain degree. I certainly do, and everything I have ever written a paper about, including my dissertation, was discovered during such experiments. If anything, I have a PhD in intellectual naivety.
I know of several extremely smart people in PhD programs who have not produced anything interesting in years, because they shrug off every problem as trivial, see paper writing as below their dignity, and keep themselves busy with teaching. They seem to wait to be automatically rewarded for their intelligence. After all, that is exactly what happened to them in school, and during their Bachelor/Master studies.
Armchair anecdote: I have a high IQ, and I fall into that same trap when it comes to game development. It's something I dabble in, and every game idea I come up with that I can reasonably actually complete feels like it's far too simple.
But I look at the market and there are tons of games that are that simple that have actually sold copies, so I should just do one of them and get started. But something in me refuses to put effort into those ideas. There's always something else I'd rather do, for whatever reason.
I wouldn't say we wait to be "automatically rewarded for our intelligence", but I would say we foolish wait for the thing that's "worthy" of our intelligence, when we really should just get something done.
But I look at the market and there are tons of games that are that simple that have actually sold copies, so I should just do one of them and get started. But something in me refuses to put effort into those ideas. There's always something else I'd rather do, for whatever reason.
I wouldn't say we wait to be "automatically rewarded for our intelligence", but I would say we foolish wait for the thing that's "worthy" of our intelligence, when we really should just get something done.
I have a similar issue, and discovered that in reality intelligence can help mask the significant downsides of ADHD.
People take this to mean ADHD is a signal of intelligence, but conversely it's that successful people with ADHD tend to be quite good at masking.
If I were in your shoes today I would seriously consider talking to a mental health professional, since self-diagnosis is no diagnosis and ultimately seeking help earlier for me would have significantly decreased the likelihood of burnout.
People take this to mean ADHD is a signal of intelligence, but conversely it's that successful people with ADHD tend to be quite good at masking.
If I were in your shoes today I would seriously consider talking to a mental health professional, since self-diagnosis is no diagnosis and ultimately seeking help earlier for me would have significantly decreased the likelihood of burnout.
I’ll be honest I read their comment and thought “that sure sounds like ADHD to me”. But then again, it’s hard to say what you even do with a diagnosis, and I’m not sure I even recommend formalizing it.
For me, the stimulant prescription was a bad idea. Too much addictive/abuse potential. I know it’s not everyone’s experience, but to me it’s easier to just solve the day to day problems without labeling it as a disorder or bringing medication into the mix.
For me, the stimulant prescription was a bad idea. Too much addictive/abuse potential. I know it’s not everyone’s experience, but to me it’s easier to just solve the day to day problems without labeling it as a disorder or bringing medication into the mix.
Medication is not necessarily the answer: In this we agree, formalising it helps because only when we understand do we have the language and tools to properly address the issue.
In my case I was burning myself out because I was guilt-tripping on my “lazy” behaviours.
ADHD is definitely overmedicated in my opinion, however what you often find is that ADHD people (especially those good at masking) are self medicating with caffeine.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is the most likely outcome of a formal diagnosis. Theres no quick wins with that but its the more sustainable way for the majority of people.
ADHD is definitely overmedicated in my opinion, however what you often find is that ADHD people (especially those good at masking) are self medicating with caffeine.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is the most likely outcome of a formal diagnosis. Theres no quick wins with that but its the more sustainable way for the majority of people.
I would say that I don't have trouble concentrating or getting things done, once I've decided to do them. I have trouble committing to something that I think is sub-optimal. Quite often this means that I don't do that thing until I figure out a better way, and then I'm usually very happy with the result, and I have plenty of concentration and drive for it.
For things that I'm not yet good at, though, that means that I'll basically stall forever rather than do something that's not good. And I know mentally that that's the wrong attitude, but I have a lot of hobbies already, so it's hard to commit time to something that I'll be bad at for a while when I could do something I'm good at.
It's both good and bad, because it means I spend a lot of time succeeding and (somewhat) limit my spending on new hobbies. But it also means I don't stretch my wings as much as I could. Jack of All Trades vs Master of One, and all that. I'm somewhere in the middle.
For things that I'm not yet good at, though, that means that I'll basically stall forever rather than do something that's not good. And I know mentally that that's the wrong attitude, but I have a lot of hobbies already, so it's hard to commit time to something that I'll be bad at for a while when I could do something I'm good at.
It's both good and bad, because it means I spend a lot of time succeeding and (somewhat) limit my spending on new hobbies. But it also means I don't stretch my wings as much as I could. Jack of All Trades vs Master of One, and all that. I'm somewhere in the middle.
One of the reasons I refuse to get an IQ test is because I don't want to feel too dumb to attempt things or too smart to attempt things.
Your insight into what's going on in a head like mine is spot on, and I have wished for a long time that my parents would (ever) have made an effort to put me in rooms where I wasn't the "smartest" person there. When I was young, I was often the least experienced, but throughout school even, it was obvious to me and usually to them that I was smarter than my teachers.
It sounds like a humble brag but it's not. It's more like a cautionary tale. Smart children need the experience of having to work to understand things, of knowing there are things other people know or that humanity in general could know, but not instantaneously.
Intelligence could be a powerful tool, but there are precious few people teaching children (or, heck, adults for that matter! I would pay serious money for a remedial "how to work hard for things and make incremental progress" classes as an adult!) who have it how to use it.
It sounds like a humble brag but it's not. It's more like a cautionary tale. Smart children need the experience of having to work to understand things, of knowing there are things other people know or that humanity in general could know, but not instantaneously.
Intelligence could be a powerful tool, but there are precious few people teaching children (or, heck, adults for that matter! I would pay serious money for a remedial "how to work hard for things and make incremental progress" classes as an adult!) who have it how to use it.
[deleted]
Why not consider non-intellectual work? Woodworking is a humbling and gratifying experience when it comes to "working harder for things and making incremental progress".
So, it turns out that IQ only kind of correlates with success and well-being, but conscientiousness very much correlates with success and well-being. I would recommend everyone look into this for themselves and draw their own conclusions (and I won't play some google results as pokemon cards here)
Conscientousness has also been known as "grit", and is basically what you describe in yourself. I've found it is far too easy to accept dismissive, haughty people as intelligent, when they might just be over-specialized in one particular game (classwork, debate, paper-writing, etc). Recognizing this has not done great things for my imposter syndrome (am I just being dismissive??), but it has helped me feel comfortable in big rooms of experienced smart people.
Conscientousness has also been known as "grit", and is basically what you describe in yourself. I've found it is far too easy to accept dismissive, haughty people as intelligent, when they might just be over-specialized in one particular game (classwork, debate, paper-writing, etc). Recognizing this has not done great things for my imposter syndrome (am I just being dismissive??), but it has helped me feel comfortable in big rooms of experienced smart people.
Exactly, just because someone "seems" confident and can grasp concepts quickly doesn't necessarily mean they can take an idea to the next level and play with it or develop it. Those people get more attention than they deserve.
My sister is a public prosecutor. She's of maybe average intelligence, but she did study for five (or seven?) years, ten hours a day, seven days a week, to pass the test. This was on top of already having graduated from law school.
Curiosity and perseverance are probably different traits than intelligence. It'd be nice to know if these can be learned, or whether one is born with them.
Perseverance can be trained. In fact, I think that's probably the only way to get it.
As for curiosity, I don't think I've ever met a child who wasn't born with it. The goal there might have to be to avoid anything that would cause a child to unlearn it.
As for curiosity, I don't think I've ever met a child who wasn't born with it. The goal there might have to be to avoid anything that would cause a child to unlearn it.
Too much curiosity can be dangerous. As I child, I constantly opened electrical devices to see how they worked internally, resulting in several 230 V shocks (the notion of alternating current instantly made sense to me in 8th grade, because you feel the line frequency as an extreme vibration in the hand when you get shocked). My wife stuck a plastic toy into an outlet as a child to see if plastic really was a bad conductor. The toy had some glitter paint on it, and apparently, that paint was a good conductor.
I also have a Ph.D. and am dumb as rocks sometimes. Example: yesterday I spent several seconds trying to badge into the subway turnstile with my employee ID card, mystified why it wasn’t working.
Ph.D. selects for research ability, which either weakly correlates (or perhaps inversely correlates—who’d want a PhD anyway??) with common sense and street smarts.
Ph.D. selects for research ability, which either weakly correlates (or perhaps inversely correlates—who’d want a PhD anyway??) with common sense and street smarts.
I am like you. I've met many people like the one's you've described. The world needs both types of people.
I could have written this exact post. It contains every point I would have made, including "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard" which was my mantra for a long time. As well as my sister not being 'smart' but very hard-working and doing infinitely better than me despite having much lower test scores.
The only thing that (eventually!) got me through my bachelors degree was thinking "If you just put one foot in front of the other, you'll get there eventually (assuming you are walking on a sphere and not perfectly along a meridian)".
People asked me if you needed to be smart to get my degree (one of the big-4 engineering degrees) ... I always said "No, just stubborn."
The only thing that (eventually!) got me through my bachelors degree was thinking "If you just put one foot in front of the other, you'll get there eventually (assuming you are walking on a sphere and not perfectly along a meridian)".
People asked me if you needed to be smart to get my degree (one of the big-4 engineering degrees) ... I always said "No, just stubborn."
I’m pretty convinced that if you just show up to class, be nice to the prof, and do all of the assignments you’ll get a mercy C or D regardless of how you performed.
I’ve never tried this (finished with a 3.9) but observed my friends.
Some would do the above and miraculously pass courses they, according to exam scores, were certain to fail.
However, my friends who had poor exam score and spotty attendance never made it through. In fact, sometimes they were so convinced they’d fail that the dropped the course or no-showed the exam — so they did in fact fail.
Hard work, maybe — simply trying is easy. But more than that, persistence.
I’ve never tried this (finished with a 3.9) but observed my friends.
Some would do the above and miraculously pass courses they, according to exam scores, were certain to fail.
However, my friends who had poor exam score and spotty attendance never made it through. In fact, sometimes they were so convinced they’d fail that the dropped the course or no-showed the exam — so they did in fact fail.
Hard work, maybe — simply trying is easy. But more than that, persistence.
If you have a higher IQ it is going to be easier though in subjects like Math, CS, Physics etc. You still need to work. It may not be hard work though.
I think there’s also a willingness to jump through hoops required that some of the most intelligent people I have known have been too stubborn for.
These results are to be expected, if IQ is normally distributed, but we push more people into obtaining university degrees.
The value of a university degree has severely deteriorated since every white collar job essentially requires having one and it will continue getting worse.
I would assume that it's worse in the US than in Europe, because in EU it seems that education is less commercialized and you can get a degree for free if you are above average.
The value of a university degree has severely deteriorated since every white collar job essentially requires having one and it will continue getting worse.
I would assume that it's worse in the US than in Europe, because in EU it seems that education is less commercialized and you can get a degree for free if you are above average.
We also no longer have as clear a signal that can be used to get high-IQ people to associate with each other then move into jobs that benefit from a very high IQ. Although on the other hand the idea that military officer intelligence is dropping (as presented in the article) is pretty concerning. If there is one place we want unusually high IQ it'd be there.
It is interesting to look at history and see how episodes of progress often require little clusters of geniuses to make them work. In the worst case, it might be harder to set that up now. Although it is hard to tell. Maybe it'd be good to normalise just testing IQ directly if that isn't already a thing.
It is interesting to look at history and see how episodes of progress often require little clusters of geniuses to make them work. In the worst case, it might be harder to set that up now. Although it is hard to tell. Maybe it'd be good to normalise just testing IQ directly if that isn't already a thing.
> in EU it seems that education is less commercialized and you can get a degree for free if you are above average.
"Above-average" students (as measured by, for example, the SAT, ACT and/or GPA) are offered free university educations in many/most states in the US. It's just that average and even below average students can and do also gain admission, though obviously the completion rate is lower. College mostly only costs money in the US if you are not academically excellent and/or you elect to go to a private or out-of-state university without a scholarship.
"Above-average" students (as measured by, for example, the SAT, ACT and/or GPA) are offered free university educations in many/most states in the US. It's just that average and even below average students can and do also gain admission, though obviously the completion rate is lower. College mostly only costs money in the US if you are not academically excellent and/or you elect to go to a private or out-of-state university without a scholarship.
Doesn't this mean the value of a university degree has increased?
If you now have to have a degree just to make it to the 40th percentile of the earning bracket that surely means it is more required than ever, and thus worth more.
If you now have to have a degree just to make it to the 40th percentile of the earning bracket that surely means it is more required than ever, and thus worth more.
The degree is worth what it can "buy". If a generation ago the degree got you to the 20th percentile earning bracket, but today it gets you to the 40th, then that degree is "buying" you less earning power overall.
Concrete example: a generation ago you could get your foot in the door at a bank with a high school diploma as a teller. Today? You need a 4-year degree in finance. Further, if you walked into that same bank with that same 4-year degree a generation ago, you'll probably be much further up the ladder than teller.
Concrete example: a generation ago you could get your foot in the door at a bank with a high school diploma as a teller. Today? You need a 4-year degree in finance. Further, if you walked into that same bank with that same 4-year degree a generation ago, you'll probably be much further up the ladder than teller.
The issue surely though is the comparator.
Your analysis misses the "what can you achieve without a degree?" part of the equation.
Your analysis misses the "what can you achieve without a degree?" part of the equation.
I'm not sure I agree. If more people have a university degree, then it's no longer than differentiator that it used to be. To obtain this degree, you have to take on a substantial student loan in the States from what I understand. To me it seems like a big financial risk, which might not pay off in many cases.
So, if we consider value to be the expected life time value of obtaining a degree with respect to the person's net worth and plot it over time I would assume that this value would be decreasing.
So, if we consider value to be the expected life time value of obtaining a degree with respect to the person's net worth and plot it over time I would assume that this value would be decreasing.
The value of a degree has increased as a product and decreased as a signal.
Some would argue that the signal was a better product than the underlying asset.
Some would argue that the signal was a better product than the underlying asset.
Exactly, I think a university degree used to be a good proxy for IQ. But like every metric it becomes becomes bastardized in the end.
It's obviously anecdotical but I know both many smart persons without higher level education and many 'not-so-bright' persons with university degrees. However, all those with degrees have parents with degrees and those without come from lower class, for the lack of better term, families.
If your parents have never set foot in an university and worked manual labor all their live, you are less likely to even consider higher education. While doctors may want their children to pursue a good career, even if those children hold no interest in that education.
If your parents have never set foot in an university and worked manual labor all their live, you are less likely to even consider higher education. While doctors may want their children to pursue a good career, even if those children hold no interest in that education.
> If your parents have never set foot in an university and worked manual labor all their live, you are less likely to even consider higher education.
That’s not what I have perceived in developing countries. Usually those kind of parents work very hard precisely to allow their children to go to university and have the life they didn’t have. They don’t want their children to work like their parents.
That’s not what I have perceived in developing countries. Usually those kind of parents work very hard precisely to allow their children to go to university and have the life they didn’t have. They don’t want their children to work like their parents.
This was my anecdotal evidence as a person from a developing nation as well. Parents around these parts give utmost priority to children's education because its the only way they can get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. Add free education to the mix and, you have a lot of people with a less privileged background getting university degrees. A Lot of people moved out of poverty within past couple decades.
Developing countries are quite different from the USA (which I understand isn't everyone's frame of reference, but is mine). My family is from a developing nation, I was told explicitly as a child to focus on education to try to manifest the best possible (white-collar) life for myself. That's one school of thought. Having a degree in almost anything is probably far more transformative in Africa than the USA, presently.
But, in many pockets of the USA, most people generally do not even consider going to college outside of athletic scholarships because the only people they know who did are teachers, who might end up being some of the lower-paid people they have encountered. Or they've seen people work "by the hand" and end up in a better position than people they know who went to college.
But, in many pockets of the USA, most people generally do not even consider going to college outside of athletic scholarships because the only people they know who did are teachers, who might end up being some of the lower-paid people they have encountered. Or they've seen people work "by the hand" and end up in a better position than people they know who went to college.
My delineation between those with degrees and those without has always been the type of feedback received through the learning process.
Those with degrees tend to be great with theory, but lacking in practice or application. Mind you, they are otherwise pretty bright people, so I don't fault them. They simply didn't get the corrective feedback needed along every step that tends to come with putting an idea into practice. I think of the engineers I work with daily as I write this. They can design new product in CAD all day, but have never built one, which hampers the implementation of their design in the real world and frustrates them.
Those who learned by doing, as opposed to 'studying to the test' such as myself will have a much stronger grasp on the ways things might go wrong (or in some cases, not actually be possible even though it works on paper or in simulation) and be better prepared for it. However, we also tend to have considerable gaps in our theoretical knowledge, and tend to try to make up for it by our ability to quickly adapt or problem solve.
Combined, I'd say the two types of people do make a good team, so long as each is compensating for the others deficiencies in a mutually beneficial way. I rather like the engineers I work with, and they seem to like me, so together, we are pretty valuable to each other and our employers. With other teams, I see this relationship break down when one side starts with the "they don't know anything" attitude.
Those with degrees tend to be great with theory, but lacking in practice or application. Mind you, they are otherwise pretty bright people, so I don't fault them. They simply didn't get the corrective feedback needed along every step that tends to come with putting an idea into practice. I think of the engineers I work with daily as I write this. They can design new product in CAD all day, but have never built one, which hampers the implementation of their design in the real world and frustrates them.
Those who learned by doing, as opposed to 'studying to the test' such as myself will have a much stronger grasp on the ways things might go wrong (or in some cases, not actually be possible even though it works on paper or in simulation) and be better prepared for it. However, we also tend to have considerable gaps in our theoretical knowledge, and tend to try to make up for it by our ability to quickly adapt or problem solve.
Combined, I'd say the two types of people do make a good team, so long as each is compensating for the others deficiencies in a mutually beneficial way. I rather like the engineers I work with, and they seem to like me, so together, we are pretty valuable to each other and our employers. With other teams, I see this relationship break down when one side starts with the "they don't know anything" attitude.
IDK, I went to a state tech school and the huge majority (including myself) were from union/working class parents with no degrees. For at least my parents, getting a degree was seen as a ticket to a better life.
At the time, that school was also the cheapest (and consistently ranked at best value) so I think it just kind of self selected.
The competing private tech university however … I’m guessing those kids had parents with degrees.
At the time, that school was also the cheapest (and consistently ranked at best value) so I think it just kind of self selected.
The competing private tech university however … I’m guessing those kids had parents with degrees.
> If your parents have never set foot in an university and worked manual labor all their live, you are less likely to even consider higher education
Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is that, in Europe at least, there's a huge difference people who value learning and working and those who don't: degree or not. There are people who've been doing manual labor their entire lives who value learning, knowledge and working.
One parent of mine got a university degree, the other didn't. I'm entirely self-taught (in more than one domain) but the thing is: my parents valued learning. My mom would, after work, create "learning games" for us, for example.
A friend of mine is a lawyer: his parents and grandparents were farmers/paesants but they valued working. He is proud of being the son and grandson of "paysants" ("peasants"). My wife's grandparent was an intellectual working... In a coal mine (after WWII he had no choice: he ended in a country where he didn't speak the language and the only job he was offered was in a coal mine).
Heck, my grandfather was a lawyer but he quit lawyering to... Build chalets in the countryside. With his own hands. He was doing manual labor but he was an intellectual and very well educated.
I've got lots of respect for farmers / blue collar working people. But I cannot stand the entitled, 90 IQ, people holding a bullshit degree (not all degrees are bullshit) and doing bullshit work and asking for 28 hours workweek while I've got doctors friends whom, after 10 years+ of studies, are working their arses off (for a great salary, granted).
My point being: there's higher education (like becoming a doctor or the engineer working on the machines that doctors do use to cure cancers) and "higher" education, as TFA shows.
People don't like IQ as a measurement but I know the IQ of those who make these machines and those who create medicine. And I know smart plumbers, electricians, farmers, ...
I've got friends (well, family really) who are both doctors and they don't get to see their kids as much as they would like to: but they explained me that they prefer their kid growing up seeing as role models people who save other people's lives and who work hard to do that.
They consider their job useful. Just as they consider a plumber's job useful (I had to dig once for five hours in human manure to locate a clogged pipe on a sunday to save the plumber some time on monday morning... Though job they do these guys: yup, it's virtually always men doing that).
But bring me someone with a 90 IQ holding a "gender studies" "higher education" degree and I'll want to slap him/her/zhe in the face with a cluestick for they produce jack shit of value to society.
Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is that, in Europe at least, there's a huge difference people who value learning and working and those who don't: degree or not. There are people who've been doing manual labor their entire lives who value learning, knowledge and working.
One parent of mine got a university degree, the other didn't. I'm entirely self-taught (in more than one domain) but the thing is: my parents valued learning. My mom would, after work, create "learning games" for us, for example.
A friend of mine is a lawyer: his parents and grandparents were farmers/paesants but they valued working. He is proud of being the son and grandson of "paysants" ("peasants"). My wife's grandparent was an intellectual working... In a coal mine (after WWII he had no choice: he ended in a country where he didn't speak the language and the only job he was offered was in a coal mine).
Heck, my grandfather was a lawyer but he quit lawyering to... Build chalets in the countryside. With his own hands. He was doing manual labor but he was an intellectual and very well educated.
I've got lots of respect for farmers / blue collar working people. But I cannot stand the entitled, 90 IQ, people holding a bullshit degree (not all degrees are bullshit) and doing bullshit work and asking for 28 hours workweek while I've got doctors friends whom, after 10 years+ of studies, are working their arses off (for a great salary, granted).
My point being: there's higher education (like becoming a doctor or the engineer working on the machines that doctors do use to cure cancers) and "higher" education, as TFA shows.
People don't like IQ as a measurement but I know the IQ of those who make these machines and those who create medicine. And I know smart plumbers, electricians, farmers, ...
I've got friends (well, family really) who are both doctors and they don't get to see their kids as much as they would like to: but they explained me that they prefer their kid growing up seeing as role models people who save other people's lives and who work hard to do that.
They consider their job useful. Just as they consider a plumber's job useful (I had to dig once for five hours in human manure to locate a clogged pipe on a sunday to save the plumber some time on monday morning... Though job they do these guys: yup, it's virtually always men doing that).
But bring me someone with a 90 IQ holding a "gender studies" "higher education" degree and I'll want to slap him/her/zhe in the face with a cluestick for they produce jack shit of value to society.
There are four distinct concepts at play;
Some people are born smart, but they choose not to go to university. Or they live in a culture where it's unnecessary. They thrive as autodidacts. Or they are lone wolves who can accumulate capability on their own much better.
Others are born smart but they have no access, no family money, no grants or loans, or they live in a culture that frowns on class mobility. If they are lucky they can self-teach anyway or find mentors. If they are unlucky they are sadly wasted. That's a lot of people in the world, because IQ and global intelligence has been steadily rising.
Some people are born dumb as a brick, but they have family who insist, and pay for them to attend. Or they live in a culture that shoehorns everyone through university as a matter of course, or as a holding pen for youth.
The outputs of formal education likewise vary. Some really smart people go to university and fail. Some universities are awful. Students come out lacking the piece of paper their parents and gatekeepers want.
And of course there are some really dumb people should never have gone to university, but they were sold it, or pushed, and their failure is a real knock-back in life. I've seen university destroy many young people. It's a fucking tragedy and I absolutely blame the extractive wannabe culture of education as a cosmetic product.
Some cognitively challenged people manage to cheat and weasel their way through obtaining a degree certificate. Maybe they're not so dumb huh, because they learn guile and corruption necessary for modern life.
Regardless the credentials, some people may or may not obtain an actual education while at university. The space, free time, the library, access to smart professors... these are all opportunities to blossom. Some, at the lower ranking universities, merely get parochial training, which expires within a year and they need to "retrain". In this way education is a great racket.
Some people follow the path of enlightenment. They really do start out quite intellectually weak, but while at university they find themselves, study hard, become well educated and smarter as they "learn how to learn" and the value of knowledge and self-discipline. For them, university is the making of them.
Some even follow this path and realise late in the game that the certificate isn't worth waiting for, so they jump off and start life early. I believe Messrs. Gates and Zuckerberg fall into this group.
Anyway, in 30 years as a visiting professor I've seen all of these things and more. Higher education varies around the world, as do the cultures that set the value and desirability of HE.
The problem is that western universities have become degenerate. They've been taken over by a toxic culture of financialism and professional management and are no longer fit places for teaching, learning and research. They fall into the GIGO taxonomy, as degree mills where you pay £20,000 or whatever, and you damn well expect a degree. And if you don't get one then sue.
And to be honest, in the UK that's most of them now, not just the provincials but the Russell Groups too. The only reason to go is for the networking and certificate and that requires a gatekeeper culture to keep up its value - one which is rapidly crumbling.
When people ask me now, "Is it worth getting a degree?", I have to be very sceptical. What do you really want to do in life and what sort of person are you?, those are the more important questions.
- Innate capability, as intelligence, drive etc
- Access, in terms of money and background culture
- Accumulated capability, as education or training
- Credentials, certificates
Some people are born smart, but they choose not to go to university. Or they live in a culture where it's unnecessary. They thrive as autodidacts. Or they are lone wolves who can accumulate capability on their own much better.
Others are born smart but they have no access, no family money, no grants or loans, or they live in a culture that frowns on class mobility. If they are lucky they can self-teach anyway or find mentors. If they are unlucky they are sadly wasted. That's a lot of people in the world, because IQ and global intelligence has been steadily rising.
Some people are born dumb as a brick, but they have family who insist, and pay for them to attend. Or they live in a culture that shoehorns everyone through university as a matter of course, or as a holding pen for youth.
The outputs of formal education likewise vary. Some really smart people go to university and fail. Some universities are awful. Students come out lacking the piece of paper their parents and gatekeepers want.
And of course there are some really dumb people should never have gone to university, but they were sold it, or pushed, and their failure is a real knock-back in life. I've seen university destroy many young people. It's a fucking tragedy and I absolutely blame the extractive wannabe culture of education as a cosmetic product.
Some cognitively challenged people manage to cheat and weasel their way through obtaining a degree certificate. Maybe they're not so dumb huh, because they learn guile and corruption necessary for modern life.
Regardless the credentials, some people may or may not obtain an actual education while at university. The space, free time, the library, access to smart professors... these are all opportunities to blossom. Some, at the lower ranking universities, merely get parochial training, which expires within a year and they need to "retrain". In this way education is a great racket.
Some people follow the path of enlightenment. They really do start out quite intellectually weak, but while at university they find themselves, study hard, become well educated and smarter as they "learn how to learn" and the value of knowledge and self-discipline. For them, university is the making of them.
Some even follow this path and realise late in the game that the certificate isn't worth waiting for, so they jump off and start life early. I believe Messrs. Gates and Zuckerberg fall into this group.
Anyway, in 30 years as a visiting professor I've seen all of these things and more. Higher education varies around the world, as do the cultures that set the value and desirability of HE.
The problem is that western universities have become degenerate. They've been taken over by a toxic culture of financialism and professional management and are no longer fit places for teaching, learning and research. They fall into the GIGO taxonomy, as degree mills where you pay £20,000 or whatever, and you damn well expect a degree. And if you don't get one then sue.
And to be honest, in the UK that's most of them now, not just the provincials but the Russell Groups too. The only reason to go is for the networking and certificate and that requires a gatekeeper culture to keep up its value - one which is rapidly crumbling.
When people ask me now, "Is it worth getting a degree?", I have to be very sceptical. What do you really want to do in life and what sort of person are you?, those are the more important questions.
I have not seen anyone say this, so I will (apologies if I missed someone's comment). It is not clear that IQ is a good measure of smart.
I'll also note that when I teach Elementary Statistics and ask undergrads for a show of hands of who has taken an IQ test, often in a class of 30 I won't get more than a hand or two. So I guess these studies are administering the tests specially for the study?
I'll also note that when I teach Elementary Statistics and ask undergrads for a show of hands of who has taken an IQ test, often in a class of 30 I won't get more than a hand or two. So I guess these studies are administering the tests specially for the study?
> I'll also note that when I teach Elementary Statistics and ask undergrads for a show of hands of who has taken an IQ test, often in a class of 30 I won't get more than a hand or two. So I guess these studies are administering the tests specially for the study?
I'm also wondering where they're getting all of the IQ stats. I have no idea what my IQ is, and I don't recall ever taking an IQ test in my entire life. Where I came from, it certainly wasn't routine to administer IQ tests.
I'm also wondering where they're getting all of the IQ stats. I have no idea what my IQ is, and I don't recall ever taking an IQ test in my entire life. Where I came from, it certainly wasn't routine to administer IQ tests.
If you increase the number of people going to higher education isn't it obvious that average IQ will fall. Since 1940 the percentage of population that completed college went up from 5% to 30% whilst average IQ dropped 7-10%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Would be interesting to plot average IQ against the percentage of population that go to college.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Would be interesting to plot average IQ against the percentage of population that go to college.
Is IQ everything that counts?
Does the family's social class count or not? Does the socioeconomic situation of the state, country, neighborhood count or not? Does fashions, wars, crises, recessions, mass layoffs, drugs permitted by states, industrial changes, friends, political changes, city councils, police and judges, corruption, monetary funds, teachers, management of study centers, laws, banks and what not... count?
Living in Spain, more than 20 years working with Linux (self-learned from magazines, books, and modem-internet in the 90's), could not get a degree (by family situation, did start to work in fields unrelated to technology at 16's)... have found many persons with a degree and very low IQ in my career.
Still, interesting article. Here, even basic education is 100% worse than it was 20, 30, 40, 50, etc years ago.
Does the family's social class count or not? Does the socioeconomic situation of the state, country, neighborhood count or not? Does fashions, wars, crises, recessions, mass layoffs, drugs permitted by states, industrial changes, friends, political changes, city councils, police and judges, corruption, monetary funds, teachers, management of study centers, laws, banks and what not... count?
Living in Spain, more than 20 years working with Linux (self-learned from magazines, books, and modem-internet in the 90's), could not get a degree (by family situation, did start to work in fields unrelated to technology at 16's)... have found many persons with a degree and very low IQ in my career.
Still, interesting article. Here, even basic education is 100% worse than it was 20, 30, 40, 50, etc years ago.
You come out guns blazing about how IQ isn't the only thing, but then get twisted about "working with Linux" somehow being any way related to degrees and then claim to have found many degree havers to be very low IQ.
Kind a think you should take stock again and reconsider what you think IQ is and what it means. Hint: it has nothing to do with using Linux.
Kind a think you should take stock again and reconsider what you think IQ is and what it means. Hint: it has nothing to do with using Linux.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
In my time (20 years ago) computer related Degrees didn't teach Linux (again, here in Spain).
I, years after leaving formal education, without any degree, have been giving talks at universities to engineering students.
My reference to linux was not 100% related to the IQ... but I did want to talk about working in tech and degrees, which I think, depending on the company/industry, may be a signal for me (rather than be 8 hours screwing the same screw in a car chain). By that I don't mean there is not people with a high IQ in a chain (even there is lot of people with a degree in car chains).
Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong, thanks for pointing that.
Update: To complete... what may affect IQ? education changes? can a person educated one way or another, develop different IQ? physiological (ADN, etc) changes? can mutations over generations change the medium IQ? social changes? can the environment, habits and traditions during the formative stage of a person affect the IQ? I think so... maybe I should start by asking: what doesn't affect the IQ of a person?
In my time (20 years ago) computer related Degrees didn't teach Linux (again, here in Spain).
I, years after leaving formal education, without any degree, have been giving talks at universities to engineering students.
My reference to linux was not 100% related to the IQ... but I did want to talk about working in tech and degrees, which I think, depending on the company/industry, may be a signal for me (rather than be 8 hours screwing the same screw in a car chain). By that I don't mean there is not people with a high IQ in a chain (even there is lot of people with a degree in car chains).
Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong, thanks for pointing that.
Update: To complete... what may affect IQ? education changes? can a person educated one way or another, develop different IQ? physiological (ADN, etc) changes? can mutations over generations change the medium IQ? social changes? can the environment, habits and traditions during the formative stage of a person affect the IQ? I think so... maybe I should start by asking: what doesn't affect the IQ of a person?
It seems like they are just giving background on what they do for a living for added context before stating that they have encountered low IQ people with degrees in their field.
How you got that somehow they are comparing Linux to IQ is above me; perhaps I am just too low IQ to understand.
How you got that somehow they are comparing Linux to IQ is above me; perhaps I am just too low IQ to understand.
It's a measurement of cognitive performance, nothing more. It does not tell if you can do a good job or not.
I think it's a good tool when looking a two groups or looking at performances over time.
But it could be biased, for example when he say PhD IQ fall when enrollment is higher, measuring the quality of the work would've been better.
Also IQ don't give you any hint of causation. Maybe IQ drop because of school quality? Screen time? Physical activity drop? Some widespread chemical? Lack of oportunity given the world environmental crisis?
There are many factors that could play a role.
I think it's a good tool when looking a two groups or looking at performances over time.
But it could be biased, for example when he say PhD IQ fall when enrollment is higher, measuring the quality of the work would've been better.
Also IQ don't give you any hint of causation. Maybe IQ drop because of school quality? Screen time? Physical activity drop? Some widespread chemical? Lack of oportunity given the world environmental crisis?
There are many factors that could play a role.
> Is IQ everything that counts?
H*ll, no...but it's an easily obtained, one-dimensional number. Which pushes lots of people's buttons. So it's near-perfect if you want people to pay attention to your pretty graphs and glib conclusions.
I suspect a better number (for "good prospect for college?" questions) would be some measure of how willing & able a student is to sit and study (vs. be physically active, do real-world work, and interact socially). At least back when I went to college, there were lots of brilliant flakes. Their HS grades and admission test scores made them look like potential Ph.D's. But their inability to really study, for college-level classes, meant that they flunked out in a year or two.
H*ll, no...but it's an easily obtained, one-dimensional number. Which pushes lots of people's buttons. So it's near-perfect if you want people to pay attention to your pretty graphs and glib conclusions.
I suspect a better number (for "good prospect for college?" questions) would be some measure of how willing & able a student is to sit and study (vs. be physically active, do real-world work, and interact socially). At least back when I went to college, there were lots of brilliant flakes. Their HS grades and admission test scores made them look like potential Ph.D's. But their inability to really study, for college-level classes, meant that they flunked out in a year or two.
You don’t have to suspect! There is probably a bazillion of papers that study how conscientiousness (ability to “sit and study”) and other traits relate to grades, how they interact with IQ and so on. Here is one I just googled: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/11/7/146
Not impressed at all that someone works with Linux.
Not trying to impress at all... see the rest of the sentence and paragraph, its just background of the environment where I did meet people with a degree and low IQ
For the comments... it's clear I did choose a bad word here. Should I have say computers, all known programming languages, Microsoft, cisco, or whatever in 20 years... if linux was so easy for everyone 20 years ago.
Didn!t mean that I've high IQ just because I use Linux or something like that... neither i'm looking for congratulations.
My only point is that having a degree may not be only related to a high IQ and the other way around.
For the comments... it's clear I did choose a bad word here. Should I have say computers, all known programming languages, Microsoft, cisco, or whatever in 20 years... if linux was so easy for everyone 20 years ago.
Didn!t mean that I've high IQ just because I use Linux or something like that... neither i'm looking for congratulations.
My only point is that having a degree may not be only related to a high IQ and the other way around.
Yet all statistical data on this proves you wrong. STEM degree holders have high IQs, no need to get insecure over it.
Maybe because statisticians (with their degree and correspondent IQ) never did reach really clever persons without a degree that I've known to perform an IQ test... or because they didn't choose some of the STEM degree holders, authors of real horror histories at work, or with the brain of a vegetable, that I did know.
Who knows :)
Anyway, don't want to discuss about if I'm wrong or insecure, but about the topic, have a nice day!
Who knows :)
Anyway, don't want to discuss about if I'm wrong or insecure, but about the topic, have a nice day!
The article seems to consider a "degree" to be fungible across providers. At least in the UK, there's a definite hierarchy of universities and the value of their courses, even if a pretence of equivalence is sometimes maintained.
Actual Title: "Education Isn’t What It Used To Be"
That's less clicky, but more descriptive of the article.
That's less clicky, but more descriptive of the article.
That actual title says almost literally nothing.
Depends on the degree, mostly. Necessary disclaimer that everything I'm about to say is about statistical averages, which of course doesn't apply to you, dear reader - you are hypercompetence incarnate and I know the world heavily undervalues you. :)
The average bachelor's degree holder in the United States has an IQ of about 115, or about an 1100/1600 on the SATs. Some of the majors you probably intuit to be rigorous (mathematics, engineering, CS, and quite often philosophy) really do also tend to have higher average IQs for successful graduates - I usually hear 125 to 130 floated for these ones. There also exist majors with lower average IQs, like [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
Competition for the top schools tends to push the average IQ there much higher no matter which nation one looks at - my alma mater's average SAT scores would suggest an average IQ of 130 or so across the board. But, for most people going to most schools, that won't make that much of a difference, and unsurprisingly a lot of really smart people decide the extra thousand hours to crank out 200 extra points on the SAT just isn't worth it. That's why surprisingly often you'll meet e.g. an engineering graduate from Podunk Polytechnic who's smarter than half the people you meet at the University of Ivory Towers.
College degrees act as a valuable signaling mechanism of both one's intelligence and ability to work consistently in a modern environment. One relevant term to Google is "sheepskin effect". If your IQ is anywhere in the triple digits, it is almost certainly possible for you to get an associate's degree, and it's probably possible for you to get a bachelor's as well.
If your IQ is in the double digits, it's probably not the best move, just from an effort to reward standpoint. Luckily the trades pay quite well and provide an alternative track that's both in demand and more accommodating of people who have less raw brainpower to throw around, but who are otherwise quite good and decent people.
And of course, I've known e.g. a few electrical engineers who became licensed electricians after their degree just because they liked working with their hands, and they almost always seem to clean up very well.
Practically anyone interested in this topic would do well to read https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d..., both if they love college and if they hate it.
The average bachelor's degree holder in the United States has an IQ of about 115, or about an 1100/1600 on the SATs. Some of the majors you probably intuit to be rigorous (mathematics, engineering, CS, and quite often philosophy) really do also tend to have higher average IQs for successful graduates - I usually hear 125 to 130 floated for these ones. There also exist majors with lower average IQs, like [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
Competition for the top schools tends to push the average IQ there much higher no matter which nation one looks at - my alma mater's average SAT scores would suggest an average IQ of 130 or so across the board. But, for most people going to most schools, that won't make that much of a difference, and unsurprisingly a lot of really smart people decide the extra thousand hours to crank out 200 extra points on the SAT just isn't worth it. That's why surprisingly often you'll meet e.g. an engineering graduate from Podunk Polytechnic who's smarter than half the people you meet at the University of Ivory Towers.
College degrees act as a valuable signaling mechanism of both one's intelligence and ability to work consistently in a modern environment. One relevant term to Google is "sheepskin effect". If your IQ is anywhere in the triple digits, it is almost certainly possible for you to get an associate's degree, and it's probably possible for you to get a bachelor's as well.
If your IQ is in the double digits, it's probably not the best move, just from an effort to reward standpoint. Luckily the trades pay quite well and provide an alternative track that's both in demand and more accommodating of people who have less raw brainpower to throw around, but who are otherwise quite good and decent people.
And of course, I've known e.g. a few electrical engineers who became licensed electricians after their degree just because they liked working with their hands, and they almost always seem to clean up very well.
Practically anyone interested in this topic would do well to read https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d..., both if they love college and if they hate it.
As a dropout that has worked in higher education, you don’t have to be smart at all, wealth, cheating, and nepotism/prejudice are all students need.
Below average at worst.
Conscientious matters most, and I would wager is overly represented in those of average to below average intelligence — compared to above and beyond.
A provocative corollary: “but what about genius PhDs/professors/researchers” I would say being born in the upper middle class, but of middling intelligence, will make the path straight forward, requiring no great intellect.
Conscientious matters most, and I would wager is overly represented in those of average to below average intelligence — compared to above and beyond.
A provocative corollary: “but what about genius PhDs/professors/researchers” I would say being born in the upper middle class, but of middling intelligence, will make the path straight forward, requiring no great intellect.
More people getting an education is a good thing. The value of a degree has not deteriorated just because dumber people are also graduating. If you cannot distinguish yourself from those you deem dumber than you, then you won't be able to arrive to the conclusion I am alluding to.
I would make the argument that what passes for education has gone down drastically. People aren't getting smarter on the path to getting degrees.
Look at Harvard today. One of the US's premier institutions has lost its way when it comes to academic rigor being one of its primary functions.
Look at Harvard today. One of the US's premier institutions has lost its way when it comes to academic rigor being one of its primary functions.
> But we’re also spending more and more of our lives in education, and that threatens the time in the parts of our lives where we really enjoy being adults.
The time I was going to school was probably the best time of my life. Not because of school itself, but because of having a stable group of friends, lots of "events" and things to look forward to... and a lot of support for extra-curricular activities, like sports and hobbies.
After you finish school, you can feel like having a pointless life if you don't find something to concentrate on (usually your career - which is in many cases a pointless thing to focus on anyway).
The time I was going to school was probably the best time of my life. Not because of school itself, but because of having a stable group of friends, lots of "events" and things to look forward to... and a lot of support for extra-curricular activities, like sports and hobbies.
After you finish school, you can feel like having a pointless life if you don't find something to concentrate on (usually your career - which is in many cases a pointless thing to focus on anyway).
University was a big wake up call for me. I learnt that it wasn't the smartest people that did best, but those that were most able (and willing) to follow instructions.
Interesting, I didn't know about this effect. However the analysis seems to implicitly assume that a person's IQ remains constant as they move up the educational ladder. This does not seem right, assuming that education system works as it should (ie, exposing students to harder and harder issues over time), and also because people should still naturally develop intellectually after high school.
Well people want IQ to be a test of intelligence, which it isn't particularly but supposing it were, if it increased with education then people who were well-educated would have a higher IQ than those who were not. Wealthy parents would be able to afford to give their children a higher IQ.
All sorts of side effects would come into play (or as they are already in play be increased) because it would be obvious that the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder are there just because they are smarter than everybody else and the serfs should stop their whining.
What is actually wanted are
1. a potential score that remains pretty much even as you start to realize the potential, with decrease with age as it is supposed that potential decreases. This is actually pretty much the way IQ works. It would also be nice if potential could identify areas in which you had more potential.
2. an educational score across various areas.
3. an ability to apply 1 and 2 score.
functions that could calculate what education you should have further, cost / benefit analysis etc.
Has your ability to apply what you have learned increased by the amount expected given your potential, would, for example, be an interesting thing to track.
All sorts of side effects would come into play (or as they are already in play be increased) because it would be obvious that the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder are there just because they are smarter than everybody else and the serfs should stop their whining.
What is actually wanted are
1. a potential score that remains pretty much even as you start to realize the potential, with decrease with age as it is supposed that potential decreases. This is actually pretty much the way IQ works. It would also be nice if potential could identify areas in which you had more potential.
2. an educational score across various areas.
3. an ability to apply 1 and 2 score.
functions that could calculate what education you should have further, cost / benefit analysis etc.
Has your ability to apply what you have learned increased by the amount expected given your potential, would, for example, be an interesting thing to track.
I've always understood IQ to be similar to the "horse power" of your brain.
Filling the brain with more facts, and learning more quick routes and tricks, will, surely, make you arrive at a conclusion faster, but the raw Horse Power of your brain/internal engine is not going to get any higher.
Filling the brain with more facts, and learning more quick routes and tricks, will, surely, make you arrive at a conclusion faster, but the raw Horse Power of your brain/internal engine is not going to get any higher.
tl;dr
If you don't select for IQ on input, you don't get IQ on output. Putting more people through university doesn't change this. It just devalues a degree as a marker of relative intelligence.
This is called "failing" by some people, and technically it isn't (because numbers.) But socially and culturally perhaps it is.
Author suggests at the end that we should spend less time educating people. But - rather obviously - if more of the population goes to university, education for them is being extended to graduation.
So you have kids spending more time being educated, leaving with a less useful qualification.
What's missing is any discussion of how this affects the culture, the work force, and the quality of universities themselves. Is there any evidence it's easier for relatively low-IQ people to become university professors or managers? How does that affect outcomes? What does it mean for employment and economic stability and output?
Overall a blizzard of graphs, but rather superficial analysis.
If you don't select for IQ on input, you don't get IQ on output. Putting more people through university doesn't change this. It just devalues a degree as a marker of relative intelligence.
This is called "failing" by some people, and technically it isn't (because numbers.) But socially and culturally perhaps it is.
Author suggests at the end that we should spend less time educating people. But - rather obviously - if more of the population goes to university, education for them is being extended to graduation.
So you have kids spending more time being educated, leaving with a less useful qualification.
What's missing is any discussion of how this affects the culture, the work force, and the quality of universities themselves. Is there any evidence it's easier for relatively low-IQ people to become university professors or managers? How does that affect outcomes? What does it mean for employment and economic stability and output?
Overall a blizzard of graphs, but rather superficial analysis.
Getting a degree is more than just being intellectually smart. Many smart folk can't apply themselves as they get bored easily so fail their courses. A degree requires application, endurance, and stamina. It's not a sprint but a marathon applies here I feel. A sprinter is the intellectually smart person in most cases.
I have two degrees but don’t think I’m very smart. I’m actually pretty slow at understanding certain things. I have one big quality though that really helped, and still helps me get through complex things: I can get really really obsessed with a single topic and spend all my time on it.
Since I've seen both stupid and brilliant people get degrees in technical fields, I'm inclined to say that you don't need to be particularly smart to get one. The corollary to this is that you can't assume a person is smart just because they have a degree.
How comparable are IQ tests from 1940 and 2024? And how good a measure of intelligence are IQ tests?
If I recall correctly, they have been trending upwards for the the past 100 years (up 30 points but I doubt the average person was clinically retarded) and only relatively recently has started to show a slight decline. IQ tests from 100 years ago are still pretty valid, they use military tests I believe. Double check that.
> Among major European nations, who’s the most trustworthy? [...] The answer depends on who you ask.
In Poland, the Germans seem to have been selected as both "Most Trustworthy" and "Least Trustworthy".
In Poland, the Germans seem to have been selected as both "Most Trustworthy" and "Least Trustworthy".
Imo in some unis it's enough that you paid the bill and have a pulse.
Not very, points at me.
Ofcourse you need some basic cognitive functions in order to be able to read, write and present yourself. Remember you don't have to be best to get a degree, you only need to pass and when you don't succeed you can in most cases try again.
That said, get a degree if you can. It will help you in the job market, and if you for some reasons don't pursuit a degree for any random reasons - you will still have the background leading up to this point in time which can count as experience.
That said, get a degree if you can. It will help you in the job market, and if you for some reasons don't pursuit a degree for any random reasons - you will still have the background leading up to this point in time which can count as experience.
An I.Q. above body temperature.
with my data sample = 1, I can say not very
I got a degree and I’m a dumbass, so you really don’t need to be smart at all lmao
We can argue about the degree holders of yesteryear or we can look forward to a more fair and equitable future for the degree holders of tomorrow.
1) I've confirmed this off-line first hand with actual parents (who are frankly, besides themselves), not some random news blurb. You can do the same.
2) As uncomfortable as it may be for you to discuss: This will further change the nature of degrees going forward.
I would politely suggest it will devalue them completely but that's just my subjective opinion I suppose.
As a worshipper of the written word I have no idea where we go from here and am looking for some sort of ray of hope because it is getting scary.
Edit: This comment has been almost immediately pinned to the bottom of the thread. Bizarre to say the least. What is going on here?
Seattle high schoolers were told that “Worship of the Written Word” is white supremacy
1) I've confirmed this off-line first hand with actual parents (who are frankly, besides themselves), not some random news blurb. You can do the same.
2) As uncomfortable as it may be for you to discuss: This will further change the nature of degrees going forward.
I would politely suggest it will devalue them completely but that's just my subjective opinion I suppose.
As a worshipper of the written word I have no idea where we go from here and am looking for some sort of ray of hope because it is getting scary.
Edit: This comment has been almost immediately pinned to the bottom of the thread. Bizarre to say the least. What is going on here?
Dear mods this comment is not flagged and has upvotes I am asking for public clarification why you pinned it to the bottom.
> How smart do you have to be to get a degree?
Not especially, what you have to be is hardworking and committed. You don't even need to show significant improvement; just an understanding of the subject material.
Of course this gets less true as you go up the degrees. (Batchelors requiring a broad rote understanding, Masters requiring a more detailed understanding and PhD requiring some sort of novelty that pushes the field forward).
However there's a saying: "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard".
I have lived this.
My sister is not smart. That may seem unkind but she would be one of the first to admit this. Things do not come to her easily, she has a hard time recognising patterns and lacks a certain level of "common sense". She is extremely motivated though. Thorough and hardworking.
I have had the fortune of being quite gifted, I test well and have a great propensity to solve novel puzzles. I, however, procrastinate and am easily distractible.
She has a degree, I do not.
Intelligence had nothing to do with it. Being hardworking did.