We use college for too many purposes

[Johan Larson]

A recent essay by yours truly:

http://short-sharp.blogspot.ca/2018/02/we-use-college-for-too-many-purposes.html

In my view, our focus on college stems from our habit of using college for three related but different purposes:

– general intellectual training

– elite selection and preparation

– job-specific training

If we were to separate these functions, we would probably be better off.

[Warren Ellis]

But don't you know? Vocational school is for idiots!

Christ I wonder how that stupid idea ever got entertained and spread around. The idea that EVERYONE must go to college has really harmed people in the end.

[Johnny1A]

It has two or three roots.

Various court rulings have made it illegal to use IQ tests and the like as a criterion for hiring, which is what some companies used to do, if the tests produce racially disparate results.  The problem is that nobody has been able to come up with a workable IQ test that doesn't produce such results.  So a lot of companies started using bachelor's degrees to take the place of the tests, letting college act as a sorting screen.

Another reason is that the elite classes in the modern West are very comfortable with academic thinking and academic testing and such, and so tend to favor that route to join their ranks, or screen out others.  It's become a subset of the whole credentialism process that guards access to the high levels.  This is also reflected in the stigmatization of 'the trades'.  One of the ironies of our current elite class is that many of them hold mechanics and carpenters and plumbers in contempt as intellectual inferiors, but some of those same people couldn't replace a car battery if their life depended on it.

Add in the fears of parents who don't see any other route to success for their kids, given the high immigration rates and technological changes of the last 30-40 years, and you've got the system we've got.

[Johan Larson]

Bryan Caplan in "The Case against Education" addresses the issue of Griggs as a driver of employers' preference for college graduates, since they are not allowed to use direct IQ tests, if they have disparate racial impact. Basically, he doesn't buy it. He looks at the costs of employment-based lawsuits, and concludes they are so low that if IQ were all that employers are interested in, the prudent thing to do would be to use IQ tests, and deal with the lawsuits as a cost of doing business.

"If disparate impact cases cost the usual amount, employers' total test tax is under $200 million a year.

"Compared to the total upcharge a nation of employers pays for college graduates, this is a pittance. If IQ testing really let employers hire college-quality workers for high school wages, prudent employers would freely test IQ and treat the occasional lawsuit as a minor cost of doing business. Remember: correcting for ability, college grads earn 40% more than high school grads. If IQ laundering were a central function of higher education, courts could raise the test tax a hundredfold -- and IQ testing would remain profitable."

[Johnny1A]

True, it's not just the court decisions that produce this result, but they are a contributing factor among others.

Another reason is plain old habit.  We do it the way we do it because that's the way we've been doing it for a while.  The HR personnel who handle the hiring came up through the same system, are familiar with it, and take it for granted.