"After Credentials" (Paul Graham)

Parents Forum
21

<p>I think that hard work and the like can help in success a great deal. Many of those 1980's yuppies are now partners at large law firms and investment banks for example, or very experienced doctors, and other professionals or business owners. However, when you look to jobs that are in very short supply, and extremely high power ones, connections beat all. Yes GWB is the son of GHWB. Don't forget that our next secretary of state, the soon to be former senator of NYS is the wife of a former president. Her successor may well be the daughter of a former president. Mario Cuomo's son, Andrew would like the job too (former governor's son is now NYS attorney general). Al Gore, son of a Senator, was senator and then VP of US. It doesn't matter if you are a dem or a republican. "Best" credential, be born from the right pelvis.</p>

<p>Seriously, of course there can only be one secretary of state, 100 senators and 100 CEOs of Fortune 100 companies. Just by the numbers, there have to be some that come from unstellar backgrounds, and not all descendants of those of great fame succeed, but it doesn't hurt to be from the well connected. Just my 2 cents.</p>

22

<p>ramaswami, this is addressed to you specifically.</p>

<p>In a perfect world, the best performers would get the best credentials (college degrees), and those with the best credentials would get the best jobs. Then all would be set.</p>

<p>That's the model that we ostensibly live with. You get into college with admissions criteria like grades, test scores, and activities. Then you get a job based off of one big criteria, your college degree, that builds off of all the previous factors. All the steps along the way accumulate into a narrowing filter system that is based off of performance at various levels. </p>

<p>But each rung of the ladder can never truly represent performance; they all rely on heuristics. Test scores can be "gamed" with prep, grades are inconsistent, and stellar resumes are often only reflections of parental involvement. If the qualifiers for elite college admissions are imperfect, and colleges do not do much further weeding, the college degrees themselves are imperfect performance predictors too. And to top it off, the bulky corporate system often allows incompetent degree holders to comfortably remain without performance accountability. So an inappropriate feeder is coupled with a faulty ejection mechanism; that's a problem.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, the system as a whole is the best we have, and it's absolutely necessary. No one is suggesting that we do away with most of this stuff and allow trainees to be tested completely on the job. The author acknowledges the usefulness of our current system. The underlying philosophy of 'meritocracy' is not under attack. The article only poses two strategies for improving the implementation of those values that I think we all already agree with.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If jobs almost completely rely on credentials, as is the case now, tighten up the measures for selecting who gets those credentials. If employers aren't going to ensure quality, but rather blindly rest on elite degrees, schools should admit with better predictors of performance. Yes, the Ivy's do this very well already. But it can be done better: lessening legacy advantages, making tests less prep-able, etc. However, an attack on legacies is unfeasible and test improvements are already reaching their limits.</p></li>
<li><p>If little more can be done to ensure the right people get the right credentials, then perhaps the best action is for employers to look beyond credentials, to recognize that while elite college degrees usually correlate with performance in many professional fields, they only go, and only can go, so far. This doesn't mean that we should let anyone become a doctor. This does mean that perhaps employers should be more open to the possibility that a non-Ivy doctor is the best person for the job, and perhaps Obama should be open to a non-Harvard graduate holding one of his government positions. New professionals will always face a degree hurdle, and rightfully so, but previous performance is the best indicator of future performance. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>And look, this isn't really something that is a radical departure from the status quo or requires heavy-handed intervention. Firstly, as I said before, it's a concept that's completely streamlined with the philosophy of a meritocracy. Secondly, it's already happening, of its own accord, as American companies de-senioritize their hierarchies. Increased emphasis on performance and quicker, nimbler companies go hand in hand. Both are growing. The author is saying this is good.</p>

23

<p>One of the cool things about the open source world is that your reputation is based on your accomplishments. It's not about your looks, your money, your car, your degree but what you get done. You might be a teenager that creates a product that takes over the world or a computer researcher with a Phd that implements an algorithm to vastly improve the performance of something that is currently in wide use.</p>

<p>It's a meritocracy without the things that can be gamed.</p>

24

<p>This article to me lends itself into an in-depth discussion of credentials:</p>

<p>Credentials are those achievements and accomplishments that are supposed to predict future performance. Getting into a top school you need credentials, and getting a high-powered job you need credentials. Credentials are necessary because one cannot just allow one on the job in order to assess one's fitness for said job. The problem with credentials seems to arise when the credential does not actually accurately predict future performance. Lets look at the simplest credential that may not accurately predict future performance:age. One's age is usually seen as a boon for a leadership position, because one assumes a fifty year old has seen more and is more wise and better at decision making than an 18 year old. However, we all know that there are 18 year olds more fit to lead than 50 year olds, although overall 50 year olds make better leaders. The crux of my argument, therefore, is that the best credentials measure one's readiness for said job and those are the credentials that are viewed most importantly by society. Now, Graham talks about legacy as one of those things that dilutes a top college degree. However, there are more credentials than just a degree from Yale, one gets a GPA, a major, recommendations, and internships. One who was not really too deserving of a credential-in this case a degree from Yale-based on grades and SAT scores, probably won't be able to succeed in these other measurements of achievement. If they do however outperform what their credentials from high school predicted perhaps they are then fitting of a job a Yale degree would help secure.
Now, there is a conundrum when a credential does not come close to measuring how fit one is for the job. Try as hard as one may, graduates of top schools as a whole are more fitted for high power jobs due to their intelligence, determination, and ambition. However, when one looks at med school admissions, it is more questionable if the credentials, GPA+MCAT, truly measure readiness to be a doctor. Indeed, when one realizes that a 3.4 EE major at MIT will be viewed lower than a 3.7 Lit major at Podunk State assuming the same MCAT, one may question the application of these credentials. I propose however, that since things are running fine, indeed excellently in this world, that the current system is perhaps one of the most efficient and profitable.
For one, for a 3.7 lit major at Podunk State to get the same MCAT score as her MIT counterpart, she truly must be bright. Furthermore, even though GPA and MCAT are not great predictors of success as a doctor, med school is. If she cannot hack it through Med school she will not be a doctor. For this reason, credentials are established based on past performance applied to future prediction.
Now, when it comes to the fervor over top schools, one must approach this issue with sensitivity. Thinking about it, there should be no essential reason using Graham's theory of performance over credentials why if I attend Stanford I should be better off than if I attended Penn State. Well, the value people and employers perceive in top schools is that said schools offer opportunities more readily than Penn State and apply harsher screening. Indeed, a 3.4 GPA at either school is good, but not very impressive. But an employer knows due to history of performance that most Stanford graduates happen to be better than most Penn State graduates at the job. If the employer has found the opposite, the Penn State me will get in over the Stanford me. This is the process applied in I-bank recruiting. Generally, not many people will have any idea what to do technically at Wall Street but due to prior performance an investment banking firm knows that those with a certain credential tend to learn better than others. This is not to say that one can ride through only on their credentials, but one will get the ability to perform based on said credentials.
This is not to say you are screwed if you don't attend a top school. Indeed, in this credential based system of ours, you are helped by it. If you are one of the myriad 2250+ top 1% kids who will not be attending an especially prestigious school next fall you should not despair. With your prior credentials it is predicted that you'll earn stellar grades and take advantages of any opportunities available to you. Of course, it is still up to you to work hard, but that would be the way it is at any top school. After you get your first job, and their recs from that first job, that credential will be very important because it shows your ability at working that job not just your performance in earning predictive credentials for that job. More or less, your work experience from your first job should be viewed as more important than your college degree assuming that you want to stay in that line of work.
Bottom line:Credentials matter a lot in this world where there is not enough time to truly test everyone. College admissions are like this, you send in a relatively brief application and admissions officers are supposed to decide whom is better for their class based on only what they've seen on the application. While sometimes they make mistakes on an individual level, they know the credentials they have been selecting for have yielded excellent results in the past. This is how it is for companies, etc. However, one can always get a credential that supersedes the last one. For example, if I'm applying to work at an Engineering firm, I won't tell them my SAT math score, they'd rather see my technical GPA at Stanford. Just as if you have years of work experience, your college degree would matter less than what you have actually done on the job. Credentials are good for screening out those whom would likely fail and demarcating those whom will likely succeed. However, performance trumps all, otherwise one will fail to acquire another, more important credential.</p>

25

<p>In my decades of experience in academe, I have observed that the qualities of the individual are critical to future success. Credential as defined by merely the diploma on the wall are fleeting in the maraket place. I have found that it is the combination of intelligence, preparation, conscientioness, and social skills which are characteristic of the most successful grads. It matters not where the began there higher education.</p>

26

<p>This article = a lot of very sour grapes.</p>

<p>The article's contention that credentials are based on wealth and are therefore meaningless is silly to the point of absurdity. Admission to top schools to a large extent is performance-based. Even though some legacy admits exists in every school, most of admits got in on the merits. I attended a T6 and T30 school and I can say this: there were a lot more brilliant students in T6 than in T30. Some T6 students fluently spoke five languages or managed their own businesses. After seeing such differences in the quality of the student body, I became a firm believer that, on average, smarter students attend better schools. And if I am looking for smart people in a stack of resumes, I would look for people who attended top Ivies and did well.</p>

<p>To preempt arguments that "merit" is just a proxy for personal wealth, I would cite to two facts. First, when I was in school, I did not notice that the students' work ethics or competence depended a lot upon their family wealth. There were students from wealthy families who literally worked day and night. And there were poor students who worked day and night. And, second, you don't have to be rich anymore to attend Harvard. The vast majority of top schools offer need-blind admissions and cover 100% of financial need for U.S. citizens and legal residents. In the recent decades, American society became a lot more meritocratic. Everybody gets a chance to succeed. You don't have to be rich to do well in high school. And you don't have to be rich to do well on SAT. You don't have to be rich to get into top schools. You just have to put in some effort. I am surprised there are people who still live in the early 1900s and believe that "quality education credential" is based on wealth and is for privileged only. Have you been living under a rock?</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Credentials matter a lot in this world where there is not enough time to truly test everyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Economists refer to this as the signaling value of having a credential. The credential is a proxy for something that is too expensive to test for in the hiring process. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't have to be rich to get into top schools. You just have to put in some effort.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the larger point of the article is that effort in getting into college, and effort doing college course work, are only loosely correlated with RESULTS in subsequent employment. The author of the article said, about the advantages that come from a successful family, </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>So initially what the article advocates is that credentials be assigned to learners based on the LEARNERS' performance and not based on the learners' family advantages. That sounds fair enough, and I take it that your claim is that that already happens in large part at the colleges you have observed. </p>

<p>There is a good body of evidence that not all colleges admit all applicants strictly on the basis of applicant performance. Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>

<p>BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>A</a> Thumb on the Scale | Harvard Magazine </p>

<p>The</a> Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic (November 2005) </p>

<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Recruiting a New Elite </p>

<p>Cost</a> Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access </p>

<p><a href="http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Legacies</a> of Injustice: Alumni preferences threaten educational equity--and no one seems to care. - Reason Magazine </p>

<p>Promise</a> Lost: College-Qualified Students Who Don?t Enroll in College (IHEP) </p>

<p>Colleges</a> reach out to poorer students - The Boston Globe </p>

<p>The</a> Associated Press: Study flunks 49 states in college affordability</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Credentials matter a lot in this world where there is not enough time to truly test everyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Economists refer to this as the signaling value of having a credential. The credential is a proxy for something that is too expensive to test for in the hiring process. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't have to be rich to get into top schools. You just have to put in some effort.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the larger point of the article is that effort in getting into college, and effort doing college course work, are only loosely correlated with RESULTS in subsequent employment. The author of the article said, about the advantages that come from a successful family, </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>So initially what the article advocates is that credentials be assigned to learners based on the LEARNERS' performance and not based on the learners' family advantages. That sounds fair enough, and I take it that your claim is that that already happens in large part at the colleges you have observed. </p>

<p>There is a good body of evidence that not all colleges admit all applicants strictly on the basis of applicant performance. Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>

<p>BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>A</a> Thumb on the Scale | Harvard Magazine </p>

<p>The</a> Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic (November 2005) </p>

<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Recruiting a New Elite </p>

<p>Cost</a> Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access </p>

<p><a href="http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Legacies</a> of Injustice: Alumni preferences threaten educational equity--and no one seems to care. - Reason Magazine </p>

<p>Promise</a> Lost: College-Qualified Students Who Don?t Enroll in College (IHEP) </p>

<p>Colleges</a> reach out to poorer students - The Boston Globe </p>

<p>The</a> Associated Press: Study flunks 49 states in college affordability</p>

29

<p>Specific reply to ee33ee: I never said college admissions is perfect, but if you take away legacy it is close to as good as there can be. It may not be difficult to game SAT or grades (by taking less challenging courses) but near impossible to game SAT +SAT subject tests+AP scores+ grades in the toughest classes +teacher Recs. The top colleges have an idea of the strengths of various schools and even who teaches what. You write inappropriate feeder coupled with imperfect weeder mechanism. Imperfect feeder on occasion but why do you assume that companies always have imperfect weeder mechanisms. You mention tightening up: it has happened, the top college admissions is based on multiple measures, drop athletic and legacy admissions and we would have tightened it as much as possible. Employers do not blindly take Ivy degrees. They have only so much time and resources to devote to hiring and rely on the Ivies as initial screeners. After the hire, the degree quickly loses value, on the job performance takes over. There are top performers at non Ivies but it may be a little harder for them to distinguish themselves. We are both in agreement basically.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We are not talking about ability. We are talking about performance. Admissions are based on performance, not on some unverifiable potential ability. If low-incomes are not making it into top schools, perhaps it's because they have low GPA, low scores, and nothing to talk about except selling pot. Even if you assume that evil adcoms are somehow weeding out the poors, you don't have to talk about your financial situation in your essays anymore because top schools admissions are need-blind. </p>

<p>The real reason behind the lagging numbers of the poors in top schools is the fact that the poors on average underperform academically. But poverty is not an excuse for poor academic performance. You can study and do well even if you're poor. Textbooks are available for free in the library or from some instructors. So, maybe the real problem is that the "low-come students" prefer watching TV instead. So, please don't blame the system. The current system is well geared to help the poors succeed. But schools cannot help you if you spend your life watching tv, smoking pot, and roaming the inner city streets with your gang buddies.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
If low-incomes are not making it into top schools, perhaps it's because they have low GPA, low scores, and nothing to talk about except selling pot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is total baloney. You haven't shown the performance of actually reading the links that I posted above.</p>

32

<p>

I think we are talking about ability. After all, performance-wise, most high school seniors are pretty unimpressive. Even of the pool of candidates for top schools, there are very few who have done truly outstanding work which really showcases outstanding intellectual talent.</p>

<p>The job of admissions officers at top schools is to pick those applicants who have the most promise, whether or not they've actually been able to showcase that promise in their high school years.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
I still am yet to find a definite reason, outside of prestige of course, that makes a private research university largely greater than a public school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can give you one, at least for the top private schools: they tend to be much safer than are the top public schools. That is to say, even if you're a poor student at a top private school, you're probably still going to graduate. Both GWB and John Kerry have freely admitted that they were lackluster and unmotivated students while at Yale. But Yale nevertheless still graduated them. Contrast that with the public schools (i.e. Berkeley) where you run the significant risk of actually flunking out. I know quite a few people that that happened to. If they had gone to HYPS, they probably would have graduated. Sure, not with good grades, but at least they would have graduated. {But of course, they didn't get into HYPS.} </p>

<p>Public schools are a great deal for those students who do well. But what about those students who don't do well? What happens to them? That's the problem. These students won't graduate, and then employers will think they're unhireable because they don't have degrees. We live in a world where employers won't care why you don't have a degree. All they will see is that you don't have a degree. The top private schools, on the other hand, will still confer degrees on their students who aren't doing well, hence saving them from that scarlet letter of failure. They are akin to insurance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This article = a lot of very sour grapes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know about that. The author has a bachelor's from Cornell and a MA and PhD from Harvard.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
The only thing that might come out of a parent financially helping their kid to success is their kid getting wealthier, faster. If that's what they're looking for, that's nice, but the kid won't learn anything in the process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but I think that's all the parents really care about anyway. Let's face it. Most parents don't really care all that much about what their kids really learn, or whether they learn anything at all (beyond simple common sense). What they really want is for their kids to be financially secure and happy, and if they can do that without actually having to learn much, that's fine.</p>

35

<p>"Not to get political and I know that I'll ruffle a few feathers here but our current president is a prime example of this legacy admissions and getting by through family connections and wealth. Just because you coast by with a C average at an Ivy league and graduated doesn't mean that you ever got that education in the first place."</p>

<p>This statement demonstrates ignorance on several levels. You should do some research on the older SAT scoring curve and ivy league grade inflation and then re-post.</p>

36

<p>
[Quote]
This statement demonstrates ignorance on several levels. You should do some research on the older SAT scoring curve and ivy league grade inflation and then re-post.

[/Quote]

Bush got a 1206 on his SATs when he took them. The average at Yale at the time was 1370. 1206 was, and still is, a mediocre SAT score, especially for Yale. Taking into account the new curve on the verbal (math stayed roughly the same) his score would be about a 1300. Few people can get into Yale with a 1300 without a significant hook. Granted a C average then means more than it does now (perhaps B-), its still unimpressive. Even Fox News said on our oh so benevolent President's grades:

[Quote]
The president acknowledged that he was known here for so-so grades and a lively social life.

[/Quote]

FOXNews.com</a> - Self-Deprecating Bush Talks to Yale Grads - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
There can be little doubt that had Bush been born to a family that lacked the resources to donate heavily to Yale, Bush would have been rejected.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
This is total baloney. You haven't shown the performance of actually reading the links that I posted above.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you want to assert that high-performing poors get adverse treatment at top schools, show some evidence. Do not "link" a kitchen sink. I did read several of your "links" and they were complete garbage. None had any hard data that would support theory that high-grades, high-score poors don't get into top schools.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
I think we are talking about ability.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are badly mistaken. Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability. All of these are performance benchmarks. Adcoms hope that past performance (high school benchmarks) is indicative of potential for future performance (college benchmarks, and eventually employment benchmarks), but ultimately, nobody can tell.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Both GWB and John Kerry have freely admitted that they were lackluster and unmotivated students while at Yale. But Yale nevertheless still graduated them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And both this country and the international community would have been better off if Yale had .. kick GWB out. As to Kerry, despite his military record, he was one bad politician (although not nearly as bad as GWB).</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
You are badly mistaken. Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability. All of these are performance benchmarks. Adcoms hope that past performance (high school benchmarks) is indicative of potential for future performance (college benchmarks, and eventually employment benchmarks), but ultimately, nobody can tell.

[/quote]

Well, of course it depends on the types of schools about which we're talking. If we're talking about the top schools in this country (as I assume we are), then admissions decisions are not determined primarily by grades, scores, and writing ability -- the applicant pools of top schools have too narrow a distribution of stats to make these distinctions meaningful. (E.g., at MIT about 50% of applicants have an SAT I math score of 750 or above, and 70% of applicants are in the top 5% of their high school classes. Decisions within this group are not made on the basis of SAT score or class rank -- the minute differences between applicants are not meaningful enough.)</p>

<p>And admissions officers do not merely cross their fingers and hope that their decisions are right; they carefully track admitted students for grade-related and job-related outcomes to determine whether their methods are producing the kind of alums they want for the school.</p>