This entire essay doesn't include the phrase "disparate impact". That's like having an essay about why ice cream sells better in the summer without mentioning temperature.
Hard to see how it could be a crucial factor when it's much less important in Europe and yet European countries have even higher college attendance rates.
Glad you're writing this and looking forward to reading the next installment. I always found Caplan's theory persuasive and struggled to find any critique of it that was remotely convincing. This is the first critique I've seen that made me start to question it. Though I suspect what you're going to argue is just a more sophisticated version of his model, or in any case something very different from the human capital account, which would ultimately lead to the same implication of education being a waste of time and money.
On the IQ thing -- I don't think the fact firms don't explicitly test for intelligence doesn't mean they aren't trying to measure it with degrees. I reviewed the literature on IQ and productivity, and I inevitably had to answer why firms didn't use IQ testing if it was effective. My answers:
- Sometimes it doesn't make sense to do so, if the job is unskilled, or if the skill is highly legible -- like in musicians.
- About 40% of the American population either doesn't think IQ tests measure intelligence well, or are not sure whether they do. Even if incentives are aligned, many managers, executives, and founders may choose not to select based on IQ.
- Beyond being controverisal, IQ tests are gauche; stigmatised on grounds of being racist, classist, and ageist. They assign people a single number that is assumed to measure intelligence, something considered to be innate and valuable, a dynamic which creates resentment.
- IQ tests are also boring, cold, and lazy. Some peope might choose to do reviews or holistic evaluations because they feel better, even if they don't have the same cash out.
So there is no need to explain why firms don't use IQ testing in the signalling model of education. I do, however, think that alternative theories (social, ability signalling) are drowned out in the academic debate. Ability-confounding in particular is also underrated and underdiscussed as an explanation for the education~earnings association, with at least 50% of the variance being explained by that alone.
Regarding models for education returns, a different question: if university didn't pay, would people still go?
I think some people definitely would. Not as many as there are right now, but it gives people an opportunity to regularly see people their age, of both sexes, who are highly intelligent. It makes learning easier, extends childhood, and gives people a sense of direction and credibility.
How would you design a test for conscientiousness? If you did, you would literally revolutionize personality research. I don't think you can do it in less than several years. If it was shorter, say one week, the signal would be very weak because non-consciountious people can push hard for one week if the stakes are as high as their entire careers.
Is there anyone for whom higher education is not a waste of time and money? Do you mean it's a waste of time and money only for the top percentiles of intelligence and motivation?
I found a large part is option value assuming you'll outperform, but it gets affected as larger parts of the populace also go get the same signal and make it ubiquitous.
This entire essay doesn't include the phrase "disparate impact". That's like having an essay about why ice cream sells better in the summer without mentioning temperature.
Hard to see how it could be a crucial factor when it's much less important in Europe and yet European countries have even higher college attendance rates.
Glad you're writing this and looking forward to reading the next installment. I always found Caplan's theory persuasive and struggled to find any critique of it that was remotely convincing. This is the first critique I've seen that made me start to question it. Though I suspect what you're going to argue is just a more sophisticated version of his model, or in any case something very different from the human capital account, which would ultimately lead to the same implication of education being a waste of time and money.
On the IQ thing -- I don't think the fact firms don't explicitly test for intelligence doesn't mean they aren't trying to measure it with degrees. I reviewed the literature on IQ and productivity, and I inevitably had to answer why firms didn't use IQ testing if it was effective. My answers:
- Sometimes it doesn't make sense to do so, if the job is unskilled, or if the skill is highly legible -- like in musicians.
- About 40% of the American population either doesn't think IQ tests measure intelligence well, or are not sure whether they do. Even if incentives are aligned, many managers, executives, and founders may choose not to select based on IQ.
- Beyond being controverisal, IQ tests are gauche; stigmatised on grounds of being racist, classist, and ageist. They assign people a single number that is assumed to measure intelligence, something considered to be innate and valuable, a dynamic which creates resentment.
- IQ tests are also boring, cold, and lazy. Some peope might choose to do reviews or holistic evaluations because they feel better, even if they don't have the same cash out.
So there is no need to explain why firms don't use IQ testing in the signalling model of education. I do, however, think that alternative theories (social, ability signalling) are drowned out in the academic debate. Ability-confounding in particular is also underrated and underdiscussed as an explanation for the education~earnings association, with at least 50% of the variance being explained by that alone.
Regarding models for education returns, a different question: if university didn't pay, would people still go?
I think some people definitely would. Not as many as there are right now, but it gives people an opportunity to regularly see people their age, of both sexes, who are highly intelligent. It makes learning easier, extends childhood, and gives people a sense of direction and credibility.
See
https://www.technotheoria.org/p/does-selecting-employees-for-iq-work
https://www.technotheoria.org/p/why-does-everybody-hate-the-white
For sourcess.
> IQ tests are an example of a very cheap but very credible signal
It is definitely possible to study for IQ tests
https://www.technotheoria.org/p/do-iq-tests-measure-intelligence
Just 3 retakes is enough to boost IQ scores by 7 points. Anecdotally, both my SAT/GRE scores increased by 1 SD after studying harder.
How would you design a test for conscientiousness? If you did, you would literally revolutionize personality research. I don't think you can do it in less than several years. If it was shorter, say one week, the signal would be very weak because non-consciountious people can push hard for one week if the stakes are as high as their entire careers.
Is there anyone for whom higher education is not a waste of time and money? Do you mean it's a waste of time and money only for the top percentiles of intelligence and motivation?
I looked at the value of college in detail a few years ago: https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/should-you-go-college
I found a large part is option value assuming you'll outperform, but it gets affected as larger parts of the populace also go get the same signal and make it ubiquitous.