Power of College

[Infected Mushroom]

I don’t think he ever questioned it much. It’s just assumed and seen as the default, straight and narrow path. The path to success and wealth. We’ve set up a system of credentialism.

Your assumptions are incorrect. Warren Buffet initially didn't want to go to college, but his father insisted. After getting his Bachelor's degree he enrolled in Columbia University specifically to learn from Benjamin Graham, whose teachings formed the basis of Buffet's investment philosophy. After graduating with a Master's from Columbia he attended the New York Institute of Finance and then founded the company that would eventually buy textile manufacturing firm Berkshire Hathaway and turn it into a giant holdings company and the centre of his vast wealth.

And if his father made the correct economic decision for him, then it's not necessarily so much what the schools actually taught him... but that his father understood the POWER (image-wise) that the appearance of institution-conferred-intellectual-prestige/credentials had REGARDLESS of what was or wasn't taught

[Infected Mushroom]

Sure. A degree back then is worth way more than a degree now.

So... first he only got one "it was the default", and now -- now it's been shown how few got one -- he got one because of how rare they were.

You know how many people get a degree now... now everyone gets one?

38.3% of women and 36.7% of men. Two thirds of the population don't have one. That's still pretty rare.

Rumours of their ubiquity seem much overstated.

I was under the impression that the percentages were a lot higher but I may be mistaken.

[Ifreann]

Buffet was very well positioned to do as IM thinks is best and gone straight into his career with some experience and no higher education. Apparently he was mad for investing and entrepreneurship even from a young age, and he was already fairly rich to begin with, which is the best way to get rich, so he'd probably have done pretty well for himself. But the vast wealth he has now is very much a result of what he learned in Wharton and Columbia, especially what he learned in Columbia from Benjamin Graham.

Rather undermines the idea that credentialism is holding back the economy when the very famous investments guy absolutely used his university education to form the basis of his financial empire.

While I think he would have gained more useful knowledge, experience, and abilities had he spent those years working instead... in practice, he was already living in a society where college was seen as the ticket to success. It's not so much what the degree ACTUALLY teaches so much as the appearance of it if that makes sense.

As has been pointed out to you, this was the late 40s and early 50s and the vast, vast majority of Americans did not go to college. So no, Buffet was not living in a society where college was seen as the ticket to success. Buffet's father wanted him to go to college, and Buffet clearly found some value in it because he stuck with it after getting his first degree.

So it made economic sense (investment-wise) to fully cash in on the Wharton brand and the image of college and the doors it could have opened... but that's only the case because of the reputation that is bestowed (deservedly or not) upon a college graduate and how they are viewed by society and employers.

As I explained to you, when Buffet finished his education he started his own business. He never needed to use the reputation of the schools he attended to impress a prospective employer, because he didn't have an employer. He wasn't applying for jobs and sending around a CV. He used what he learned to inform how he invested his money, which got him more money, which he invested, and so on until he had the nonsense amounts of money he has today.

But objectively speaking, had he spent those years working instead, he would have actually learned more. Whether or not that learning would have been enough to overcome the artificial gains created by the credentialist nature of society is an unknown variable.

I know you hate showing evidence and prefer to argue based on your feelings, but I am going to have to ask you to prove that Warren Buffet would, objectively speaking, have learned more if he had been working than he learned in university.

[Saiwania]

Actually, if that was the area you had your heart set on, I think you'd do better getting a degree. That way, if it all went belly-up (say you lost your firm a lot of money, as I said earlier in thread), you would have a degree that gave you applicable knowledge in other financial areas and university friends who you could talk to (who would be working in a related field) when you wanted to move fields.

There is nothing about college that guarantees you'll have friends or any networking contacts if a person really and truly doesn't care about that kind of stuff. For me, I knew my grades would suffer if I had any fraternity or non-school activities to distract me. The courses cost too much money, so I was trying to make damned sure that I'd pass the first time, every time. It was too much of a struggle to do everything that was expected but I graduated a 2 year program nonetheless. Its not hard to get a passing grade if your results don't suck and you follow the course syllabuses to the letter.

[The Serbian Empire]

I think it's the nature of specific professions being license gatekept behind stuff you probably can only get the knowledge of via a degree program.

Edit: If you don't remove the gates, then you still have it where the college graduate outearns based on the nature of how much studying one must do to pass the test to be a licensed engineer, doctor, etc.

[The Free Joy State]

Actually, if that was the area you had your heart set on, I think you'd do better getting a degree. That way, if it all went belly-up (say you lost your firm a lot of money, as I said earlier in thread), you would have a degree that gave you applicable knowledge in other financial areas and university friends who you could talk to (who would be working in a related field) when you wanted to move fields.

There is nothing about college that guarantees you'll have friends or any networking contacts if a person really and truly doesn't care about that kind of stuff. For me, I knew my grades would suffer if I had any fraternity or non-school activities to distract me. The courses cost too much money, so I was trying to make damned sure that I'd pass the first time, every time. It was too much of a struggle to do everything that was expected but I graduated in 2 years nonetheless. Its not hard to get a passing grade if your results don't suck and you follow the course syllabuses to the letter.

Get a passing grade... perhaps (though "not hard" is still highly dismissive of education). But I doubt most students aim for "passing"

How about -- in the US -- summa cum laude, or magna cum laude, or cum laude? You're looking at 5%, 10% and 25% respectively.

In the UK, 28% get a First, and 48% get a Higher Second (the bare minimum needed to take a degree further; some Masters' and Doctoral courses are asking for a First).

[Saiwania]

How about -- in the US -- summa cum laude, or magna cum laude? You're looking at 5% and 10% respectively.

Yes, what about the degree honors? I have Cum Laude with my degree. No one really cares about it so far as hiring goes. It just means I pulled off a high GPA relatively speaking.

[The Serbian Empire]

if the economy isn't being advanced optimally, then everyone suffers for it

it's the same with law and order and public healthcare

it has to take precedence over the appearance of productive intellectualism

And if people don't actually know what they are doing in the fields mentioned the economy is not being advanced optimally. Particularly since in those fields, it would be very easy for misinfo to follow from doctor to student.

See Chiropractors as a good example of misinformation with the Joseph Cipriano Y-Strap which seems to be more torture device than medically useful. The company that makes Y-straps says they're for exercising, not for neck adjustments.

[The Free Joy State]

How about -- in the US -- summa cum laude, or magna cum laude? You're looking at 5% and 10% respectively.

Yes, what about the degree honors? I have Cum Laude with my degree. No one really cares about it so far as hiring goes. It just means I pulled off a high GPA relatively speaking.

It depends what jobs you go for. Sometimes it is a minimal requirement. Sometimes it doesn't come up. Sometimes it does, but not as you expect.

I once applied for a job where the hiring manager went to my university (I hadn't gone to school actually with her); we got into a lovely chat about our university (and some unique circumstances of it that I'm not going to share online because it would be very identifying) during the interview and I have no doubt that contributed to my getting the job.

[Saiwania]

I once applied for a job where the hiring manager went to my university (I hadn't gone to school actually with her); we got into a lovely chat about our university (and some unique circumstances of it that I'm not going to share online because it would be very identifying) during the interview and I have no doubt that contributed to my getting the job.

Its nothing but elitist nepotism that tries to deny opportunities to people without the means to get the fancy piece of paper. A business is going to be mad at the person that hired the "college person" if they know all theory but can't execute on what's expected- if they wind up still being unprofitable. I'd say HR cares more about if someone is able to do the job right or not. You usually can't without some experience doing as opposed to just learning.

[The Free Joy State]

I once applied for a job where the hiring manager went to my university (I hadn't gone to school actually with her); we got into a lovely chat about our university (and some unique circumstances of it that I'm not going to share online because it would be very identifying) during the interview and I have no doubt that contributed to my getting the job.

Its nothing but elitist nepotism that tries to deny opportunities to people without the means to get the fancy piece of paper. A business is going to be mad at the person that hired the "college person" if he knows all theory but can't execute on what's expected- if they wind up still being unprofitable. I'd say HR cares more about if someone is able to do the job right or not. You usually can't without some experience doing as opposed to just learning.

Did you just assume that I "knew the theory and couldn't execute what's expected"?

There's a kind of snobbery in that attitude: the (clearly erroneous) belief that someone with solid academic credentials cannot have real-world experience. Ever heard of working while at university? I got my first job at sixteen. I worked throughout university.

I was just highlighting the indirect social benefits of university (having something in common to talk about). If you drew "elite nepotism" from that -- I will have to tell my parents they are elite (give them a good laugh) -- that's your own prejudices.

[Infected Mushroom]

While I think he would have gained more useful knowledge, experience, and abilities had he spent those years working instead... in practice, he was already living in a society where college was seen as the ticket to success. It's not so much what the degree ACTUALLY teaches so much as the appearance of it if that makes sense.

As has been pointed out to you, this was the late 40s and early 50s and the vast, vast majority of Americans did not go to college. So no, Buffet was not living in a society where college was seen as the ticket to success. Buffet's father wanted him to go to college, and Buffet clearly found some value in it because he stuck with it after getting his first degree.

So it made economic sense (investment-wise) to fully cash in on the Wharton brand and the image of college and the doors it could have opened... but that's only the case because of the reputation that is bestowed (deservedly or not) upon a college graduate and how they are viewed by society and employers.

As I explained to you, when Buffet finished his education he started his own business. He never needed to use the reputation of the schools he attended to impress a prospective employer, because he didn't have an employer. He wasn't applying for jobs and sending around a CV. He used what he learned to inform how he invested his money, which got him more money, which he invested, and so on until he had the nonsense amounts of money he has today.

But objectively speaking, had he spent those years working instead, he would have actually learned more. Whether or not that learning would have been enough to overcome the artificial gains created by the credentialist nature of society is an unknown variable.

I know you hate showing evidence and prefer to argue based on your feelings, but I am going to have to ask you to prove that Warren Buffet would, objectively speaking, have learned more if he had been working than he learned in university.

How would I objectively prove that?

How does this objective proving thing work in this case?

There’s only one Warren and he did X. I can only speculate based on feelings on what could/would have happened if he did Y. My understanding is that Wharton would be very theoretical but then had he been using 100 percent of those years (or a greater fraction of it) actually working at a firm and experimenting with stocks… his progress in that practical endeavor would have gone up more.

But unless there’s two Warrens in two timelines I can access with a point of divergence, I’m not sure how I can prove it.

[Saiwania]

There's a kind of snobbery in that attitude: the (clearly erroneous) belief that someone with solid academic credentials cannot have real-world experience. Ever heard of working while at university? I got my first job at sixteen. I worked throughout university.

How much did your grades suffer if your attentions were divided between work and school? It takes a decent amount of time to finish all coursework and to do it well at that- if you're taking a lot of classes to try to finish your degree program on time. My problem is that my degree required courses which never got offered when I needed it to be offered, because there wasn't enough demand- so the teacher either wasn't available or just didn't do it for that semester.

So actually finishing the degree took me much longer than it should've. What did you do to ease or endure the toll fatigue or burn out was taking on you throughout the whole process? For me, I was obsessed with making the best grades possible- so that my tuition money wouldn't be wasted. If I failed any one course too many times and would have to pay for the same thing again if I wanted another chance, I'd had to of dropped out because my losses mounted would become so high after a certain point, that it would be too high for me to sustain if I couldn't secure any more money.

College the path to better success indeed. The whole concept I'm so greatly soured on, because of everything that did go wrong.

[The Free Joy State]

There's a kind of snobbery in that attitude: the (clearly erroneous) belief that someone with solid academic credentials cannot have real-world experience. Ever heard of working while at university? I got my first job at sixteen. I worked throughout university.

How much did your grades suffer if your attentions were divided between work and school? It takes a decent amount of time to finish all coursework and to do it well at that- if you're taking a lot of classes to try to finish your degree program on time. My problem is that my degree required courses which never got offered when I needed it to be offered, because there wasn't enough demand- so the teacher either wasn't available or just didn't do it for that semester.

So actually finishing the degree took me much longer than it should've. What did you do to ease or endure the toll fatigue or burn out was taking on you throughout the whole process? For me, I was obsessed with making the best grades possible so that my tuition money wouldn't be wasted. If I failed any one course too many times and would have to pay for the same thing again if I wanted another chance, I'd had to of dropped out because my losses mounted would become so high after a certain point, that it would be too high for me to sustain.

I didn't burn out and got a Higher Second (just missed out on a First; my grade average was lowered by a long illness in my final year).

Incidentally, this much wasn't your business and I'm not telling you any more.

[Saiwania]

When society at large starts focusing on job returns from higher education (and the attendant call to only offer majors and classes which are in demand) it misses the original point of higher education, which is to create well rounded citizens who can research, learn, and speak/write well on a variety of topics.

If no one cares about the original point of education anymore, then its just too bad I guess. Its perhaps become obsolete if most people think higher education costs a fortune and hence, feel under immense pressure to make damned sure that their degree will work out for them, that they'll be able to pay off their student loan after graduating or otherwise will be able to move out of poverty or low pay.

If colleges don't offer courses which have no direct job benefit anymore, its because people aren't willing to keep paying for classes that they perceive as "useless" or not in line with their life goals or ambitions. The college is merely adjusting to the market in that case.

I'm sure there would be more people that'd want to learn for the sake of learning if colleges weren't so much like a business these days, and the only cost to prospective students was their time and effort as opposed to having to pay money for it. As soon as the need for profit is introduced, it creates a customer vs service mentality where the buyer will come to expect and want a better product from the seller.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/14/fewer-k ... -cost.html
This is wonderful news for me. It means more people aren't falling for the "college" debt trap and those schools won't be able to financially bleed people dry like they're used to doing.

[Ifreann]

As has been pointed out to you, this was the late 40s and early 50s and the vast, vast majority of Americans did not go to college. So no, Buffet was not living in a society where college was seen as the ticket to success. Buffet's father wanted him to go to college, and Buffet clearly found some value in it because he stuck with it after getting his first degree.


As I explained to you, when Buffet finished his education he started his own business. He never needed to use the reputation of the schools he attended to impress a prospective employer, because he didn't have an employer. He wasn't applying for jobs and sending around a CV. He used what he learned to inform how he invested his money, which got him more money, which he invested, and so on until he had the nonsense amounts of money he has today.


I know you hate showing evidence and prefer to argue based on your feelings, but I am going to have to ask you to prove that Warren Buffet would, objectively speaking, have learned more if he had been working than he learned in university.

How would I objectively prove that?

How does this objective proving thing work in this case?

There’s only one Warren and he did X. I can only speculate based on feelings on what could/would have happened if he did Y. My understanding is that Wharton would be very theoretical but then had he been using 100 percent of those years (or a greater fraction of it) actually working at a firm and experimenting with stocks… his progress in that practical endeavor would have gone up more.

But unless there’s two Warrens in two timelines I can access with a point of divergence, I’m not sure how I can prove it.

How do you know it to be objectively true? Upon what evidence did you base that claim? If it is objectively true then you must be able to show us the relevant evidence. If you can't show us the evidence, if you don't even know what evidence you could show us, then it is not objectively true, you have just expressed a subjective opinion.

[Shofercia]

Should any NSG posts be considered sound medical advice? If you're getting your medical advice from a political shit talking forum, you may already be a lost cause.

The south shall rise again!

If only General Stonewall Jackson's Doctor consulted a medical professional, instead of someone on NSG...

On the job training isn't "put me in coach!" While telling IM to not devalue education, you're devaluing apprenticeships. No one in their right mind is going to let a newbie cut and sow. Your post is the collegiate equivalent of someone doing this: https://www.reddit.com/r/VoluntaristMem ... im_vs_joe/

Yes, apprenticeships can be a good thing -- for some jobs though, even then, most apprenticeships that I have known people take several years (two to six, averaging four) and include some classes (theory works alongside practise in many cases). They are more practical, but they are still an education (often equivalent to degree level) and not akin to the (at most) two week crash course then learning all jobs entirely on the job that IM has been proposing at all.

IM was upholding that a higher education was unnecessary for all jobs, which is so patently ludicrous that the only reasonable response was to highlight how silly that sounded.

I do not devalue apprenticeships at all, merely IM's totally impractical idea.

While I agree that a two week apprenticeship is a terrible idea, from my experience apprenticeships can teach in two years what colleges can teach in four years, because of the narrow focus on a specific job task. Furthermore, unless a job is so specialized that it requires a masters or above, apprenticeships would fare better for most jobs than collegiate education for several reasons: first, you are always in class. You aren't waiting for class space, nor do you get off easily if you miss a few lectures. Second, most college students only utilize 75% of the opportunities offered, whereas you need to utilize 90% to survive an apprenticeship. Sauce: https://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/pe ... -less.html

According to Leisure College USA, a newly released study performed by professors Philip Babcock at the University of California Santa Barbara and Mindy Marks at the University of California Riverside, the average student at a four-year college in 1961 studied about 24 hours a week. Today’s average student hits the books for just 14 hours.

Combined with classes that's 30/40 hours a week, or 75%. Third, the classes on apprenticeships are driven by the newest industry needs, whereas several colleges - aren't. As a leader of an apprenticeship program, you either succeed or lose your job; you don't have the luxury of a collegiate professor to turn in research on an as needed basis, or to research what you want rather than what society needs.

Fourth, an apprenticeship isn't obligated to teach whatever fancy strikes the current legislatures or donors who fund collegiate education, and no apprenticeship would offer a course on the Zombie Apocalypse, unless it involved acting. Now just add the fact that college is becoming more and more expensive, and you can begin to see the value of an apprenticeship, most of which are debt free, if you agree to give away a percentage of your salary for the first decade or two of working.

[United Dependencies]

Why do you not respect it? Without Wall Street’s domination over the world financial markets, do you think the USA would still be number one?

You realize there are other stock markets right? It's not the existence of banks that leads to being a center of finance, it's the wealth the banks hold, or rather, the economy in the area where the banks operate.

[Des-Bal]

Monkeys have beaten wall street pros so frequently that it's no longer noteworthy. Regardless there's really no profession where education is better than experience. When you start a job, even a professional job, anything you need to know you will come to learn very quickly or you will be fired very quickly.