Why do people think that having a college degree makes you smart? (illiterate, score)

[TKramar]

Let's bring up a point about how things happen out there in "the real world".

Last night, I was "forced" to do something that my boss didn't realize I knew how to do. He asked why I never let him know that I knew how to do that, and my reply was:

"First, you never asked me. Second, now that you know that I know, you're going to expect me to do this on top of everything else I already do here."

Showing your smarts at work--just gets you more work.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Let's bring up a point about how things happen out there in "the real world".

Last night, I was "forced" to do something that my boss didn't realize I knew how to do. He asked why I never let him know that I knew how to do that, and my reply was:

"First, you never asked me. Second, now that you know that I know, you're going to expect me to do this on top of everything else I already do here."

Showing your smarts at work--just gets you more work.

Flip side:
Working in a new field, by showing what I could do, got hired out of the temp pool, and went from new hire/level 1 to department manager in a year.

It got me more work, but also got me tons of opportunity to learn, as a temp, and to grow/rise as an employee. Granted, I wanted the extra opportunities, and I know not everybody does.

[TKramar]

Exactly. Not everyone is seeking more responsibility, or to have more on their plate. That's why some people do not even WANT to be managers. In fact, management requires some tact and social skill which I do not possess. I would make a bad manager. Not a dumb one, just a bad one.

[CosmicWizard]

Some of us work simply out of economic necessity, and choose to work as little as possible to make ends meet. There is more to life than having a career! IMO, getting all caught up in career stuff is a waste of valuable life energy and time. I'd rather live than work! I know that some people feel most alive at work, so I'm not knocking you if you are one of those in that category. For me, work has rarely ever generated a sense of inner satisfaction. Perhaps I've never found my niche, or perhaps my brain is wired to enjoy life by working as little as possible.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

Ivorytickler wrote:

What percentage of the general population is libearal?

In reality, everyone of us is liberal in some aspect of our lives and simultaneously conservative in other aspects of our lives. I have yet to meet a person who is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. Both of those words ( and that's all they really are ) are used to generate a sense of divisiveness . Those who use these labels, know that human nature likes to identify with one or the other. They know that human nature will automatically believe that the label a person identifies with will be perceived as superior to the other one. Back and forth it goes in a war like fashion. Ratings go up, politicians get more money in their coffers to fight against the evil other, and we-the-idiots willingly participate in this divisive manipulation.....to our great detriment.

You said a mouthful there. Today's labels are totally useless as far as describing anyone, they are simply a device to stereotype people so we can write them off, marginalize, ignore and hate them. Step two is to demonize the label and step three is to crank up the fear machines which is where the manipulators are able to pull money and votes from the pockets of tens of millions of people.

Politicians do it quite well, in this country race is the issue that they use to divide us.

So-called religious leaders do it quite well, in this country sex is the issue that they use to divide us; i.e. premarital sex, birth control, homosexual sex and abortion are the hot button issues that many churches zero in on as a way to separate us from our money and votes.

The NRA does it quite well, any federal, state or city government that wants to make any changes to firearm laws is used to generate ludicrous fears that "da gubmint is gonna take all yer gunz" and out go 10 million fund raising letters -- and in rolls the money from millions of Floyd R Turbo types who've been fleeced yet again by the NRA.

The environmentalists do it quite well; we're all gonna glow in the dark, we're all gonna starve or die of drinking polluted water.

All of these "special interest groups" tend to be "single issue politics" organizations. The common theme they all use is labeling, demonizing, fear mongering and, oh yes, living HIGH on the hog on your money as they hobnob with congressional types in DC, chatting over their power lunches in posh DC eateries. The joke is on anyone who thinks anything is going to change.

On and on it goes, yadda yadda yadda, fear fear fear. And it starts by sticking a label onto a person or an idea....

[thinkin about it]

Depends on the degree. I studied physics. I gained a lot.

My former roommate was an art history major. I honestly believe she got dumber as the years progressed.

If you're going to college to study the social sciences(which, incidentally, aren't sciences), hit the library. If you want to study something concrete, something real, something raw-go to college. The fact that we use the term "college" to describe physics, engineering and math on par with sociology and womens studies is absurd and insulting.

[Rei]

My former roommate was an art history major. I honestly believe she got dumber as the years progressed.

If you're going to college to study the social sciences(which, incidentally, aren't sciences), hit the library.

Some engineers that I know get dumber as the year progresses too...

If you want to study something concrete, something real, something raw-go to college. The fact that we use the term "college" to describe physics, engineering and math on par with sociology and womens studies is absurd and insulting.

And where has your physics degree landed you a career in?
You gotta stop being hostile to non-science people...

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by thinkin about it

Depends on the degree. I studied physics. I gained a lot.

My former roommate was an art history major. I honestly believe she got dumber as the years progressed.

If you're going to college to study the social sciences(which, incidentally, aren't sciences), hit the library. If you want to study something concrete, something real, something raw-go to college. The fact that we use the term "college" to describe physics, engineering and math on par with sociology and womens studies is absurd and insulting.

I am majoring in a social science because, guess what, my ideal career field REQUIRES social science degrees. Hitting the library would leave me in a worse position than getting the degree.

I hit the library for more technical skills- people don't care where you get the skills as long as you have them in most cases.

[Katiana]

I don't think having a college degree makes you smart; I think it shows that you are smart enough to have gotten the degree. As someone else said, an employer can't get into your head. He/she has to look at the externals.

[mikejj2004]

Originally Posted by mikejj2004

Why don't employers just give intelligence tests?

Wow this thread is still going strong, amazing. Since I posted it I think I've found the answer to my own question. Apparently employers did give aptitude tests, but since not all people scored equally the were banned. Enter the college degree as the only way to screen people.


"The Supreme Court ruled against a procedure used by the company when selecting employees for internal transfer and promotion to certain positions, namely requiring a high school education and certain scores on broad aptitude tests. African American applicants, less likely to hold a high school diploma and averaging lower scores on the aptitude tests, were selected at a much lower rate for these positions compared to white candidates.

The Court found that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required. Because Title VII is passed pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases while Title VII's prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.)

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power's employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act."