What is the average IQ of a Harvard student?

[Jay GW]

Does anyone know what the average IQ of a Harvard university student is?

[OripahsTrebor]

Does anyone know what the average IQ of a Harvard university student is?

The Bell Curve says they are at sigma 2.6 and from an article from Harvard, they say 130.

I wonder what will happen if a eugenics program is initiated to increase the average intelligence of a population to the level on an average student at Harvard. Of course, such a program wouldn't increase IQ.

[psikeyhackr]

There is a video that says 20 of 23 people at Harvard couldn't explain what caused the seasons.

What does that say about the significance of IQ tests and scores?

It is like our schools are designed to produce people that let AUTHORITY tell them what to do with their own brains. Of course if you don't play along then authority says you are stupid.

Is that why economists at Harvard don't notice consumer depreciation? :devil1:

psik

[jeffevnz]

There is a video that says 20 of 23 people at Harvard couldn't explain what caused the seasons.
To be fair, knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing. Furthermore, there are common misunderstandings of the cause of the seasons floating around.

Still, that number is appalling, if it's true. Admission standards at colleges are watered down by legacy, affirmative action, and athletics. (Legacy is more important at Ivy League schools, although the effect of athletics is negligible there... ) All told, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the people walking around on college campuses would not have been admitted on academic merit. Each of the three effects has been estimated as equivalent to adding 100-300 points to your SAT score. A Latino baseball player whose daddy made a grant to the medical school get into Stanford with a piece of toilet paper that says "GED" on it.

Not that I'm against affirmative action in the mean time. I've argued before that it's appropriate, as a form of reparations, and I'm sticking to that. But let's not keep it indefinitely... Athletic admissions are a case of schools forgetting their priorities. They're educational institutions, not professional sports franchises... And legacy preference is a shameless kickback.

[aegis]

I wonder what will happen if a eugenics program is initiated to increase the average intelligence of a population to the level on an average student at Harvard. Of course, such a program wouldn't increase IQ.

You'd go to a grocery store and notice that all the cashiers aren't there

[JamesBannon]

0 They went to Harvard 'Nuff said!

[OripahsTrebor]

I wonder what will happen if a eugenics program is initiated to increase the average intelligence of a population to the level on an average student at Harvard. Of course, such a program wouldn't increase IQ.

You'd go to a grocery store and notice that all the cashiers aren't there

This is off topic, but you wanna know what I would say? Good!! Good!! I am glad that would happen in such a scenario!

Realistically, I doubt it would happen, if we fear that we lose a pool of labor by increasing intelligence, we can always increase the wages and salaries of such jobs to compensate. The law of supply and demand still applies though. People will perform such tasks if they are sufficently rumunerative.

Well, one can always export cheap labor though.

[Axulus]

I wonder what will happen if a eugenics program is initiated to increase the average intelligence of a population to the level on an average student at Harvard. Of course, such a program wouldn't increase IQ.

You'd go to a grocery store and notice that all the cashiers aren't there

They'd still be there, but would be more highly paid and we would also see many more self checkout lines. With RFID technology, I hear it is possible to walk instantly though a checkout line and have everything automatically rung up.

[aegis]

I doubt increased wages will make highly intelligent people want to do low level jobs that would be boring and unsatisfying to them regardless of the pay. Would you want to work at McDonalds for 50 bucks an hour, or would you rather be a writer or a scientist for 30 bucks an hour?

How many foreign workers would be needed to prevent a huge portion of the population from being unsatisfied with their lives

[OripahsTrebor]

I doubt increased wages will make highly intelligent people want to do low level jobs that would be boring and unsatisfying to them regardless of the pay. Would you want to work at McDonalds for 50 bucks an hour, or would you rather be a writer or a scientist for 30 bucks an hour?

How many foreign workers would be needed to prevent a huge portion of the population from being unsatisfied with their lives

Mods, split this topic! I do think it is best if a disparate thread was formed about the social consequences of increasing intelligence. I am interesed if increasing intelligence would destroy social stratification. If it accomplishes this, I would pursue this goal with alacrity!

Regarding your question. 50 dollars an hours is quite a lot. I doubt people would want to work at MacDonalds at that wage, but it would attract many who seek to defray the cost of their education.

[premjan]

Interesting to think that IQ tests may be measuring cultural conformity in some cases.

[davidbach]

An interesting sidelight is the distribution of IQ at "Ivy League" colleges. I suspect that this may not apply to Harvard, since they can get enough students who are both rich and intelligent. But Yale needs to recruit about 3 highly intelligent students for every Bush it admits, and Duke needs a similar leavening for every lacrosse player, to keep the average respectable. So I suspect there is a peak at the high end lured by scholarships, and a peak at the low end due to the rich.

This is why the "top line" fees are so astronomical at these places. Generally only the really dumb actually pay these rates, the rest get scholarships subsidised by the numbskulls. These colleges know the monetary value of every SAT point and every grade point.

An interesting example of the operation of the market. It really works, as illustrated by the fact that numbskulls from Yale occupy many of the highest offices in the commonwealth. Money spent at Yale cannot improve intelligence, but it can add a reputation and provide connections.

David (who knows this because his daughter goes to college next year).

[chapka]

Mods, split this topic! I do think it is best if a disparate thread was formed about the social consequences of increasing intelligence. I am interesed if increasing intelligence would destroy social stratification. If it accomplishes this, I would pursue this goal with alacrity!

But the answer to both questions is the same, and the same evidence shows it. People have gotten consistently smarter in the last 100 years, at both ends of the bell curve, as measured by Q. There's some supporting data for this claim in the excellent book Everything Bad Is Godd For You, which unfortunately I don't have at hand, but perhaps someone else can work the footnotes for me--as I recall, the claim was that the difference was significant enough that people who were average intelligence now would have been Harvard material then (if Harvard had admitted based on intelligence then, which they mostly didn't). As people in general get smarter, the people at the low end of the intelligence curve stay at the low end. This means smarter PhDs and smarter janitors, but we still have PhDs and we still have janitors.

[chapka]

An interesting sidelight is the distribution of IQ at "Ivy League" colleges. I suspect that this may not apply to Harvard, since they can get enough students who are both rich and intelligent. But Yale needs to recruit about 3 highly intelligent students for every Bush it admits, and Duke needs a similar leavening for every lacrosse player, to keep the average respectable.

Actually, they don't, since as far as I'm aware colleges don't really compete based on average student body IQ.

It's also bizarre that you seem to think Yale and Harvard are widely different in their ability to attract students or the makeup of their student bodies. This is not the case.

This is why the "top line" fees are so astronomical at these places. Generally only the really dumb actually pay these rates, the rest get scholarships subsidised by the numbskulls. These colleges know the monetary value of every SAT point and every grade point.

Actually, they quite literally don't, at least in the specific case of Yale. Yale admissions are need-blind, meaning that they don't know when they admit you whether you'll be able to pay or not, and Yale will give out as much financial aid as they need to make sure everyone they want can go.

There is an admissions advantage given to "legacies," meaning the children of alumni, but even this will only get you so far. There are a lot fewer George W. Bushes running around than there were when the (60-year-old, remember) George W. Bush waltzed his way from Andover to Yale.

[davidbach]

An interesting sidelight is the distribution of IQ at "Ivy League" colleges. I suspect that this may not apply to Harvard, since they can get enough students who are both rich and intelligent. But Yale needs to recruit about 3 highly intelligent students for every Bush it admits, and Duke needs a similar leavening for every lacrosse player, to keep the average respectable.

Actually, they don't, since as far as I'm aware colleges don't really compete based on average student body IQ.
Well, maybe not, technically. But they are extremely competitive in attracting the brightest students. Bright students -> successful alumni -> enhanced reputation -> lots of donations.

It's also bizarre that you seem to think Yale and Harvard are widely different in their ability to attract students or the makeup of their student bodies. This is not the case.
I am sorry if I implied there was a significant difference. I have an impression that Harvard has had fewer non-merit entries, that is all. I may not be correct here. Do either admit athletic "scholars"? Some private colleges do.


This is why the "top line" fees are so astronomical at these places. Generally only the really dumb actually pay these rates, the rest get scholarships subsidised by the numbskulls. These colleges know the monetary value of every SAT point and every grade point.

Actually, they quite literally don't, at least in the specific case of Yale. Yale admissions are need-blind, meaning that they don't know when they admit you whether you'll be able to pay or not, and Yale will give out as much financial aid as they need to make sure everyone they want can go.

There is an admissions advantage given to "legacies," meaning the children of alumni, but even this will only get you so far. There are a lot fewer George W. Bushes running around than there were when the (60-year-old, remember) George W. Bush waltzed his way from Andover to Yale.
I hope you are correct. Maybe in another 20, 30 years, America will be run by a new breed of meritocrats. The lacrosse players still got into Duke - perhaps they do have good SAT scores (and are almost certainly not guilty), but they were still party boys. At least among the lesser private colleges, it seems the rich numbskull is still welcome.

If I may make an additional observation, I see a good here too. In pursuing the brightest regardless of finances, Harvard and others are effectively "robbing the rich to pay the poor". Novel idea, at least since Robin Hood. If this really is a change of heart, it indicates that the colleges judge that America is moving away from privilege by birth to privilege by intelligence (or SAT score). Let us hope they are correct - this is a step in the right direction. Which brings us back to the OP. If privilege is to be given, then give it to the intelligent and hard-working.

David.

[OripahsTrebor]

If I may make an additional observation, I see a good here too. In pursuing the brightest regardless of finances, Harvard and others are effectively "robbing the rich to pay the poor". Novel idea, at least since Robin Hood. If this really is a change of heart, it indicates that the colleges judge that America is moving away from privilege by birth to privilege by intelligence (or SAT score). Let us hope they are correct - this is a step in the right direction. Which brings us back to the OP. If privilege is to be given, then give it to the intelligent and hard-working.

David.

I wonder how a meritocracy would function if intelligence increased by three standard deviations. I think it would render social stratification impossible, thus it would be a good thing.

[Nice Squirrel]

Lets see if I can dig up some *dirt*

Looks through email inbox.....

Ah here it is...
http://www.coenet.us/files/files-demography_is_not_destiny.pdf

And this is work related so if my boss is watching... I am doing work.

[Jay GW]

What I was getting at was -
are the Ivy leagues discriminating against the low IQ?
They have the biggest funds of any schools, and the best facilities.
Why do only high IQ people get in?

There are many productive low IQ people too.

-

[psikeyhackr]

With computers so cheap now and the internet should Ivy League schools matter?

How much of this is just social nonsense? Is this BS happening because people keep believing in it? I am sick of meeting college dummies.

psik

[I. C. Unicorns]

This is why the "top line" fees are so astronomical at these places. Generally only the really dumb actually pay these rates, the rest get scholarships subsidised by the numbskulls. These colleges know the monetary value of every SAT point and every grade point.


God Bless Stupidity!

[psikeyhackr]

I was wrong. The video says 21 of 23 people at Harvard got basic astronomy wrong.

The Harvard segment starts 8 minutes in.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8863032177906819557

I think some enjoyable sci-fi books containing real science could do a world of good for grammar school kids. Maybe they would end up thinking Harvard was too dumb to apply to. :devil1:

psik

[coloradoatheist]

I was wrong. The video says 21 of 23 people at Harvard got basic astronomy wrong.

The Harvard segment starts 8 minutes in.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8863032177906819557

I think some enjoyable sci-fi books containing real science could do a world of good for grammar school kids. Maybe they would end up thinking Harvard was too dumb to apply to. :devil1:

psik

if Harvard was putting out complete dummies companies would stop hiring them after school. There's more to college than just knowledge itself and that's why for the time being online classes won't be respected as much as traditional schools except for some certain fields.

Mike

[Metaphor]

Mods, split this topic! I do think it is best if a disparate thread was formed about the social consequences of increasing intelligence. I am interesed if increasing intelligence would destroy social stratification. If it accomplishes this, I would pursue this goal with alacrity!

But the answer to both questions is the same, and the same evidence shows it. People have gotten consistently smarter in the last 100 years, at both ends of the bell curve, as measured by Q. There's some supporting data for this claim in the excellent book Everything Bad Is Godd For You, which unfortunately I don't have at hand, but perhaps someone else can work the footnotes for me--as I recall, the claim was that the difference was significant enough that people who were average intelligence now would have been Harvard material then (if Harvard had admitted based on intelligence then, which they mostly didn't). As people in general get smarter, the people at the low end of the intelligence curve stay at the low end. This means smarter PhDs and smarter janitors, but we still have PhDs and we still have janitors.

The increase in IQ is about half a standard deviation (7-9 IQ points) every generation.

IQ tests are renormed every decade or so so that, even though intelligence has increased overall, the new average remains at 100.

Much of the increase has actually been a reduction in the variance of the low end, rather than escalation of the high end - so, in fact, the smartest people are about as smart as they were, it's everyone else who is improving.

[Caine]

What I was getting at was -
are the Ivy leagues discriminating against the low IQ?
They have the biggest funds of any schools, and the best facilities.
Why do only high IQ people get in?

There are many productive low IQ people too.

-

IQ tests essentially perform a measure of the ability to perform in academic examinations. Top universities tend to discriminate based on academic performance, mainly through examinations. As such they are not discriminating against low IQ, it is just a by-product of the over-reliance on the intelligence gauging methods of regular educational systems.

No-one has actually managed to figure out how to measure more important qualities like creativity and productivity while people are still in education.

[psikeyhackr]

if Harvard was putting out complete dummies companies would stop hiring them after school. There's more to college than just knowledge itself and that's why for the time being online classes won't be respected as much as traditional schools except for some certain fields.

Mike

You have to look at the way corporations compartmentalize people and use compartmentalized knowledge. I worked for IBM for 4 years. All of the machines I was trained on were von Neumann machines but I never heard the term and never got a good explanation of how they really worked. I built a computer at home. I didn't even learn the term until after I quit. I never ran across benchmarks either. I tried getting people who had been there for years to explain what microcode was but noone could.

But consider the implications of Harvard grads not understanding the seasons. When it is summer in the northern hemisphere it is winter in the southern hemisphere. That simple fact proves the orbit business must be wrong. Our schools teach people to memorize and give tests on what is memorized, it is not about understanding and thinking. I have seen lots of people fix machines on that basis. As soon as they run into new problem that is just a complicated variation of what they should already understand they are stuck.

How can economists who claim to understand the economy not talk about depreciation of consumer goods? I have had one dude who said he was an economist claim cars purchased by rental companies were not added to GDP. ROFL

The systme is running on automatic. When the Gross Stupidity Factor reaches some unforseeable critical level, BOOM.

How can they possibly understand the global warming debate if they don't understand what causes winter? The corporation they work for doesn't give a damn.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

The increase in IQ is about half a standard deviation (7-9 IQ points) every generation.

IQ tests are renormed every decade or so so that, even though intelligence has increased overall, the new average remains at 100.

Much of the increase has actually been a reduction in the variance of the low end, rather than escalation of the high end - so, in fact, the smartest people are about as smart as they were, it's everyone else who is improving.

It's just a question of what statistical bullsh!t are they really measuring and does it matter in the real world?

[premjan]

If IQ increases are mainly at the low end, that is precisely the opposite of what IQ researchers claim as "dysgenic" effects. Possibly sexual selection is increasing the IQ by 7 points every generation - it would make sense.

[Metaphor]

It's just a question of what statistical bullsh!t are they really measuring and does it matter in the real world?

Well, of course it matters in the real world. Having smarter people in general is going to lead to improved quality of life.

[Metaphor]

If IQ increases are mainly at the low end, that is precisely the opposite of what IQ researchers claim as "dysgenic" effects. Possibly sexual selection is increasing the IQ by 7 points every generation - it would make sense.

Sexual selection?

No. If anything, sexual selection would work in the opposite direction - more educated people (and therefore smarter people, because the two are correlated) tend to have fewer children and are therefore not passing on their smart genes as much.

In any case, the effects are far too fast for sexual selection to be the mechanism.

[premjan]

I mean that people tend to make better marital selection than their parents possibly, which ought to have some effect on IQ? I bet that marital choice can have an effect in net raising of IQ of a population. And it is not far too fast, it is per generation.

For instance, assume that people marry someone of the same IQ instead of higher or lower, that ought to have an effect on the net IQ as the entropic effects would be reduced.

[psikeyhackr]

It's just a question of what statistical bullsh!t are they really measuring and does it matter in the real world?

Well, of course it matters in the real world. Having smarter people in general is going to lead to improved quality of life.

My point was do the tests really measure smartness? I have taken plenty of these tests. They usually have vocabulary sections which check if a person knows relatively obscure words but the ideas can be expressed with more common words. That is a test of knowledge which I regard as of questionable value not intelligence. But I notice some people communicate in unnecessarily complicated and obscure ways as if that makes them appear "intelligent". I think that is silly bullsh!t.

psik

[coloradoatheist]

if Harvard was putting out complete dummies companies would stop hiring them after school. There's more to college than just knowledge itself and that's why for the time being online classes won't be respected as much as traditional schools except for some certain fields.

Mike

You have to look at the way corporations compartmentalize people and use compartmentalized knowledge. I worked for IBM for 4 years. All of the machines I was trained on were von Neumann machines but I never heard the term and never got a good explanation of how they really worked. I built a computer at home. I didn't even learn the term until after I quit. I never ran across benchmarks either. I tried getting people who had been there for years to explain what microcode was but noone could.

But consider the implications of Harvard grads not understanding the seasons. When it is summer in the northern hemisphere it is winter in the southern hemisphere. That simple fact proves the orbit business must be wrong. Our schools teach people to memorize and give tests on what is memorized, it is not about understanding and thinking. I have seen lots of people fix machines on that basis. As soon as they run into new problem that is just a complicated variation of what they should already understand they are stuck.

How can economists who claim to understand the economy not talk about depreciation of consumer goods? I have had one dude who said he was an economist claim cars purchased by rental companies were not added to GDP. ROFL

The systme is running on automatic. When the Gross Stupidity Factor reaches some unforseeable critical level, BOOM.

How can they possibly understand the global warming debate if they don't understand what causes winter? The corporation they work for doesn't give a damn.

psik

Knowing how the seasons come about is a third grade skill that you pretty much only need in third grade. It's good to know, but not an absolute somethin to have in life. How many times are you asked that except on Are you smarter than a fifth grader? You can understand global warming without knowing all thedetails behind and make a decision about it, considering also with GW we have to rely on "experts" since they are the ones making the temp readings and the models

That economist should have known if rental cars where in the GDP, but your fascination of depreciation is astounding. Economists know about depreciation thy just think it has importance like you do.

Mike

[psikeyhackr]

Knowing how the seasons come about is a third grade skill that you pretty much only need in third grade. It's good to know, but not an absolute somethin to have in life. How many times are you asked that except on Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Now I regard that statement as totally ridiculous. Knowledge is not about being able to answer questions that people ask of you, it is about understanding how reality works. That is why I regarded having to memorize how to spell ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM as totally ridiculous. It was useless information that was stupid to have to know. But the nuns at my grammar school never explained the seasons. I didn't learn it from them.

What our educational system is really about is controlling what people know. They shouldn't know things that might cause them to not go along with the system. That would be TOO SMART. :devil1:

psik

[psikeyhackr]

but your fascination of depreciation is astounding. Economists know about depreciation thy just think it has importance like you do.

I have to compensate for all of those economists that know about it but don't talk about it. :devil2:

Some of them are from Harvard, like Robert J. Barro. I emailed him and others.

psik

[coloradoatheist]

but your fascination of depreciation is astounding. Economists know about depreciation thy just think it has importance like you do.

I have to compensate for all of those economists that know about it but don't talk about it. :devil2:

Some of them are from Harvard, like Robert J. Barro. I emailed him and others.

psik

As I said, go to grad school and write your thesis on it. There's plenty of heterodox economists out there (Marx, Sraffa, Austrian) that you can easily add psikinism if you show it has any worth.

Mike

[coloradoatheist]

Knowing how the seasons come about is a third grade skill that you pretty much only need in third grade. It's good to know, but not an absolute somethin to have in life. How many times are you asked that except on Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Now I regard that statement as totally ridiculous. Knowledge is not about being able to answer questions that people ask of you, it is about understanding how reality works. That is why I regarded having to memorize how to spell ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM as totally ridiculous. It was useless information that was stupid to have to know. But the nuns at my grammar school never explained the seasons. I didn't learn it from them.

What our educational system is really about is controlling what people know. They shouldn't know things that might cause them to not go along with the system. That would be TOO SMART. :devil1:

psik


Our economic system is about what was good 50-100 years ago where people thought just having classical knowledge was important. I agree with you that critical thinking wasn't a part of schools 50 years ago and they aren't today. However the subject taught aren't what is needed (aka knowing what causes seasons).

Mike

[Waning Moon Conrad]

[QUOTE]
Still, that number is appalling, if it's true. Admission standards at colleges are watered down by legacy, affirmative action, and athletics.

Athletics? :eek: WTF?

Are you telling me that American universities allow people in, based not on academic capacity but based on athletic ability????

[Metaphor]

[QUOTE=jeffevnz;4499043]

Athletics? :eek: WTF?

Are you telling me that American universities allow people in, based not on academic capacity but based on athletic ability????

American university admissions are nothing like Australian ones. There are legacy clauses (allowing the children of alumni relaxed standards of entry - the current president of the United States being one of those who got in to the ivy league this way) as well as scholarships for all sorts of quasi-academic and non-academic accomplishments (eg if you can play football, we will give you a free ride).

[chapka]

I am sorry if I implied there was a significant difference. I have an impression that Harvard has had fewer non-merit entries, that is all. I may not be correct here.

You are not correct. In fact, Harvard has a little bit of a reputation among the Ivies for having starry-eyed admissions people. Yale has gotten a bad rep lately based on their educating the Bushes, but people tend to forget that the Harvard-educated Kennedys, while perhaps less evil, were not all exactly the brightest bulbs in the lamp store themselves.

Do either admit athletic "scholars"? Some private colleges do.

Ivy League schools do take sports into account in admissions; it's a factor that could make up for some deficiencies in other factors. But no Ivy gives athletic scholarships. More importantly, most Ivy League athletes are not expecting to be able to make money as professional athletes after college (although a few do now and then), and they aren't coddled as athletes are at many universities where sports is a moneymaking opportunity for the school. This means they tend to take their education more seriously.

In other words, you won't see someone getting into an Ivy based purely on athletics and coasting through without working, but sometimes being good at a given sport might balance out slightly lower grades or test scores, just as musical or artistic talent or writing prizes or some other extracurricular might. The current Ivy League policy is that every recruited athlete must be within one standard deviation of the school's average academic index (a weighted combination of SAT scores, grades, etc.).

[Waning Moon Conrad]

[QUOTE=Waning Moon Conrad;4507174]
(eg if you can play football, we will give you a free ride).

That is truly disgusting.

[coloradoatheist]

Of the two issues, alumni or sports help into college, getting into college because of sports is much bigger in numbers than people who get in because of alumni relationships.


Mike

[untermensche]

Of the two issues, alumni or sports help into college, getting into college because of sports is much bigger in numbers than people who get in because of alumni relationships.


Mike
Because sports can make the college more money.

These are not institutions of so-called higher learning, but capitalist enterprises trying to maximize profits, that offer this product that is called an education.

Mainly "learning" a bunch of useless trivia that few need to operate in the real world.

But the paper they give does have value, in fact it is a neccessity in some cases, even if the value is not that the person with one neccessarily had an education.

[coloradoatheist]

Of the two issues, alumni or sports help into college, getting into college because of sports is much bigger in numbers than people who get in because of alumni relationships.


Mike
Because sports can make the college more money.

These are not institutions of so-called higher learning, but capitalist enterprises trying to maximize profits, that offer this product that is called an education.

Mainly "learning" a bunch of useless trivia that few need to operate in the real world.

But the paper they give does have value, in fact it is a neccessity in some cases, even if the value is not that the person with one neccessarily had an education.

Depends on the degree and the college. Some degrees are useful and some degrees you finish it so businesses can see committment from your part.

Mike

[untermensche]

Depends on the degree and the college. Some degrees are useful and some degrees you finish it so businesses can see committment from your part.

Mike
Committment could be demonstrated towards some useful end, not as some end in itself.

When it is used as some end, it is because tools are wanted, not useful people.

And years are waisted not becoming useful so corporations can find the most compliant tools.

[coloradoatheist]

Depends on the degree and the college. Some degrees are useful and some degrees you finish it so businesses can see committment from your part.

Mike
Committment could be demonstrated towards some useful end, not as some end in itself.

When it is used as some end, it is because tools are wanted, not useful people.

And years are waisted not becoming useful so corporations can find the most compliant tools.

Yes there are other ways that committment could be shown, but getting through college shows that

a) you did well enough in the four prior years (school, tests, activities) to get in and because each school has requirements to get in you know that someone that got into Harvard met certain qualifications

b) Graduating from college shows time management, committment, some level of communication and teamwork and knowledge of the area of study.

Mike

[psikeyhackr]

b) Graduating from college shows time management, committment, some level of communication and teamwork and knowledge of the area of study.

Yeah, the primary purpose of school is psychological conditioning to subservience to AUTHORITY. That IS what the corporations want. :devil1:

Managers do not want to be told that the corporation is making garbage. I told my field manager that the Datamaster 23 was slower than the machine it was replacing. He changed the subject.

psik

[coloradoatheist]

b) Graduating from college shows time management, committment, some level of communication and teamwork and knowledge of the area of study.

Yeah, the primary purpose of school is psychological conditioning to subservience to AUTHORITY. That IS what the corporations want. :devil1:

Managers do not want to be told that the corporation is making garbage. I told my field manager that the Datamaster 23 was slower than the machine it was replacing. He changed the subject.

psik

No public education is about teaching students some standard that somebody thinks they should have, it's now become out of date. I don't know about your personal situation, it may have been the 10th time he heard and or his management told him to push it anyways.

Mike

[psikeyhackr]

it may have been the 10th time he heard and or his management told him to push it anyways.

Mike

This was Customer Engineering for the General Systems Division, we fixed the stuff when it broke, we weren't responsible for selling it. I never saw the term benchmark anywhere. I wrote my own benchmarks to test it. I had assumed it was faster and was just trying to quantify how much.

But much to my surprise...:devil1:

psik

[untermensche]

Yes there are other ways that committment could be shown, but getting through college shows that

a) you did well enough in the four prior years (school, tests, activities) to get in and because each school has requirements to get in you know that someone that got into Harvard met certain qualifications

b) Graduating from college shows time management, committment, some level of communication and teamwork and knowledge of the area of study.

Mike
What you label committment, I call subservience. Lowering your will below the will of another. Working dilengently on what you are told to work on.

That is what must be demonstrated.

That is the quality they are looking for.

[Nitrousoxide]

So wait, any kind of management on projects is a big no-no?

[coloradoatheist]

Yes there are other ways that committment could be shown, but getting through college shows that

a) you did well enough in the four prior years (school, tests, activities) to get in and because each school has requirements to get in you know that someone that got into Harvard met certain qualifications

b) Graduating from college shows time management, committment, some level of communication and teamwork and knowledge of the area of study.

Mike
What you label committment, I call subservience. Lowering your will below the will of another. Working dilengently on what you are told to work on.

That is what must be demonstrated.

That is the quality they are looking for.


I won't disagree with you much there. If you want a field where you don't have to work for someone who dictates your working conditions there are plenty of opportunities out there.

Mike

[untermensche]

I won't disagree with you much there. If you want a field where you don't have to work for someone who dictates your working conditions there are plenty of opportunities out there.

Mike
What are your options if you do not come from wealth and you are not subservient enough to take the crap given out in what is called "higher education", which you agree is really obedience training?

Day one, you just turn out, and you want to "make it".

Plenty of opportunities to you besides having to be subservient in some artificial heirarchy?

[coloradoatheist]

I won't disagree with you much there. If you want a field where you don't have to work for someone who dictates your working conditions there are plenty of opportunities out there.

Mike
What are your options if you do not come from wealth and you are not subservient enough to take the crap given out in what is called "higher education", which you agree is really obedience training?

Day one, you just turn out, and you want to "make it".

Plenty of opportunities to you besides having to be subservient in some artificial heirarchy?


I don't think it's obedience training but knowledge acquirement at the college level (disagree with it more at the HS level).

A lot of the trade professions don't require you to be subservent. Artist, writer, musician come to mind. Doctor and lawyer even though training is required, Plus you have the chance to work for small businesses. You can also become a bum and ask for handouts.

Mike

[Loren Pechtel]

So wait, any kind of management on projects is a big no-no?

Why should it be needed? The grunt on the factory floor knows everything that's needed to run the business, after all!


(Never mind that our old plant manager's standard for whether something would work ok on the plant floor was whether a 4th grader could do it. Anything more complex would cause problems.)

[Loren Pechtel]

What are your options if you do not come from wealth and you are not subservient enough to take the crap given out in what is called "higher education", which you agree is really obedience training?

Day one, you just turn out, and you want to "make it".

Plenty of opportunities to you besides having to be subservient in some artificial heirarchy?

Just because you don't realize what you learn at college doesn't mean you don't learn a lot.

And the reality is that you'll almost always do better as part of an organization as that allows you to do what you're best at rather than have to wear many hats.

Besides, even if you do it on your own you have to bow down to somebody: the customer.

[chapka]

What you label committment, I call subservience. Lowering your will below the will of another. Working dilengently on what you are told to work on.

That is what must be demonstrated.

That is the quality they are looking for.

Nonsense. The ability to demean yourself to actually follow instructions isn't valued in school for its own sake; it's valued because it's necessary to learn almost any substantive subject.

How would you suggest you learn, for example, calculus? There are pretty much two choices, as far as I can see. You can start with arithmetic and then derive the first principles of calculus from it on your own with no guidance. Or you can "lower[] your will below the will of another," by learning from a teacher, a book, or some other resource someone else created to walk you through the subject.

The first option isn't just unlikely; it's counterproductive. What if you decided to call integration flocculation and flocculation integration? It'd make it impossible for you to collaborate with anyone either in calculus or brewing science. But you can't use the names the man does for the operations of calculus, because you are an ubermensch with a superior will, right?

Yes, your teachers know certain things better than you do. You need to accept that and get over it, or you're never going to change it.