Education vs Street Smarts

[1069]

he essential ingredient is intelligence. The higher the I.Q., the more one is able to solve problems. So those with high I.Q. have gone to college as they saw that as the most optimum route to prosperity. It solved the problem of getting the right job.

However, there are also college graduates who were not that bright, and are not so likely to have success. Their communication skills might also suck, they might have terrible self-discipline, etc. These also tend to have low I.Q. as they weren't aware of these problems well enough to get them solved.

A high I.Q. person is the best choice.

I agree to some extent, but I also think verbal/linguistic skills are almost more important than a high general IQ.
I, for instance, do not have a high IQ.
My IQ is 113, which is quite average for Americans of my sex, race, and background.
But I can talk a good game, and that's more than I can say for many people with far more impressive IQs than mine.
You have got to be able to communicate effectively. That's step one. Who cares how sharp your quantitative reasoning or visual-spatial processing skills are, if you can't talk properly?
People won't even take the time to find out what your strengths are, if you lose them from the get-go by speaking and/or writing like a fool.
Even college doesn't always seem to be much help with this.

 

[MC.no.spin]

I agree to some extent, but I also think verbal/linguistic skills are almost more important than a high general IQ.
I, for instance, do not have a high IQ.
My IQ is 113, which is quite average for Americans of my sex, race, and background.
But I can talk a good game, and that's more than I can say for many people with far more impressive IQs than mine.
You have got to be able to communicate effectively. That's step one. Who cares how sharp your quantitative reasoning or visual-spatial processing skills are, if you can't talk properly?
People won't even take the time to find out what your strengths are, if you lose them from the get-go by speaking and/or writing like a fool.
Even college doesn't always seem to be much help with this.

I agree partially. Communication is vital for sure. It's an interesting differentiation to point up that these skills are independent fo intelligence. What really impresses me the most is when the communication skills are excellent, plus what the person is saying is intelligent. These individuals tend to go far in life.

College writing classes, if done with actual interest, can be quite productive in raising skill in this area. Public Speaking classes also can create communication breakthroughs for terribly reticent individuals who are in a shell. Further courses building basic communication skills from the bottom up should be made available as well.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Unlike you, I'm not claiming that my experience is "the rule". I'm simply saying that a formal education is not required to succeed in this country. At all. And, that in my experience - in both looking for work and hiring others - it plays no part whatsoever.

You are saying two different things here.

1) Education is not required to succeed.

I agree with this. You have made an absolute statement, Any exception can invalidate the opposing premise. If you can find one person that can succeed with out formal education, than the above statement is correct and logical.

2) Education plays no part in both looking for work and hiring others.

If this is just in your experience, all it is, is your experience and has nothing to do with anything outside your experience. In my experience, education is a key component to hiring employees. I have been in a position of hiring others on several occasions. If they have no education, they don't even get in the door to meet with me. If their education is mediocre, they have to have qualities that far exceed those with a better education. When I look at a resume, the first thing I look at is their educational background. To me, it denotes focus, motivation, seriousness of their pursuit of their career, and ability to persevere. We work in different fields. Perhaps this is not the case in yours, but in mine it absolutely is. To make a blanket statement about education, if that is what you did, is a complete fallacy.

 

[rivrrat]

You are saying two different things here.

1) Education is not required to succeed.

I agree with this. You have made an absolute statement, Any exception can invalidate the opposing premise. If you can find one person that can succeed with out formal education, than the above statement is correct and logical.

2) Education plays no part in both looking for work and hiring others.

If this is just in your experience, all it is, is your experience and has nothing to do with anything outside your experience. In my experience, education is a key component to hiring employees. I have been in a position of hiring others on several occasions. If they have no education, they don't even get in the door to meet with me. If their education is mediocre, they have to have qualities that far exceed those with a better education. When I look at a resume, the first thing I look at is their educational background. To me, it denotes focus, motivation, seriousness of their pursuit of their career, and ability to persevere. We work in different fields. Perhaps this is not the case in yours, but in mine it absolutely is. To make a blanket statement about education, if that is what you did, is a complete fallacy.

I made no blanket statement other than the FACT that a formal education is not required to be successful. Because it's not.

The other statement you are referring to I prefaced with "in my experience". You seem to be taking issue with that as though I had said, "In everyone's experience". Obviously it's not a blanket statement since I said, "In my experience".

And yes, we work in different fields. Obviously the medical field requires proof of explicit knowledge and training. I work in IT - or more explicity, software development. A college degree doesn't tell me squat.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I made no blanket statement other than the FACT that a formal education is not required to be successful. Because it's not.

The other statement you are referring to I prefaced with "in my experience". You seem to be taking issue with that as though I had said, "In everyone's experience". Obviously it's not a blanket statement since I said, "In my experience".

And yes, we work in different fields. Obviously the medical field requires proof of explicit knowledge and training. I work in IT - or more explicity, software development. A college degree doesn't tell me squat.

I stated that I thought you meant/said "in my experience", but I also chose to post the same. I suppose because we have very different life experiences, and professional situations, we have a very different view on the subject, though both, based on what we do, are valid.

 

[rivrrat]

I stated that I thought you meant/said "in my experience", but I also chose to post the same. I suppose because we have very different life experiences, and professional situations, we have a very different view on the subject, though both, based on what we do, are valid.

Fact of the matter is though.. I wouldn't want a doc of any kind treating me when they're fresh out of college.

Why? Because I value experience more than book learnin'. When I select a new doctor, I pay attention to WHEN they got their degree and when they started their practice. I want years of experience in successful private practice, because that tells me far more than any degree possibly could.

And when I meet them... that's the real deciding factor. They could have 10 different PhDs, wouldn't mean squat to me.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Fact of the matter is though.. I wouldn't want a doc of any kind treating me when they're fresh out of college.

Why? Because I value experience more than book learnin'. When I select a new doctor, I pay attention to WHEN they got their degree and when they started their practice. I want years of experience in successful private practice, because that tells me far more than any degree possibly could.

And when I meet them... that's the real deciding factor. They could have 10 different PhDs, wouldn't mean squat to me.

Your talking about apples and oranges, here, though. There is a difference between who you would hire to work for you, and who you would hire to treat you. In the medical field, education and training, especially when new treatments come out, can be more important than experience. I'd, in some circumstances, prefer someone who was new and updated than someone who was more set in their ways.

But, I agree completely in as far as meeting someone. I am far more successful and respected than a colleague who has tons more degrees and experience than I.

 

[rivrrat]

Your talking about apples and oranges, here, though. There is a difference between who you would hire to work for you, and who you would hire to treat you. In the medical field, education and training, especially when new treatments come out, can be more important than experience. I'd, in some circumstances, prefer someone who was new and updated than someone who was more set in their ways.

But, I agree completely in as far as meeting someone. I am far more successful and respected than a colleague who has tons more degrees and experience than I.

I thought when I went to a doctor and paid him to treat me that I WAS hiring him.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I thought when I went to a doctor and paid him to treat me that I WAS hiring him.

Different kind of hiring. As an employer, I would hire someone different than I would hire to perform a one time service.

 

[Bodi]

Fact of the matter is though.. I wouldn't want a doc of any kind treating me when they're fresh out of college.

Why? Because I value experience more than book learnin'. When I select a new doctor, I pay attention to WHEN they got their degree and when they started their practice. I want years of experience in successful private practice, because that tells me far more than any degree possibly could.

And when I meet them... that's the real deciding factor. They could have 10 different PhDs, wouldn't mean squat to me.

some of the worst doctors have the most experience for they are unwilling to change with the times. I have experienced this first hand. One of the best doctors we ever had was fresh out of college. Helped save my daugters life.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are saying two different things here.

1) Education is not required to succeed.

I agree with this. You have made an absolute statement, Any exception can invalidate the opposing premise. If you can find one person that can succeed with out formal education, than the above statement is correct and logical.

2) Education plays no part in both looking for work and hiring others.

If this is just in your experience, all it is, is your experience and has nothing to do with anything outside your experience. In my experience, education is a key component to hiring employees. I have been in a position of hiring others on several occasions. If they have no education, they don't even get in the door to meet with me. If their education is mediocre, they have to have qualities that far exceed those with a better education. When I look at a resume, the first thing I look at is their educational background. To me, it denotes focus, motivation, seriousness of their pursuit of their career, and ability to persevere. We work in different fields. Perhaps this is not the case in yours, but in mine it absolutely is. To make a blanket statement about education, if that is what you did, is a complete fallacy.

I was going to disagree with you (regarding education) until I finished reading your post. Now I have to agree. A college degree shows, above anything else, that you can finish something. Something hard. It shows you can be given a difficult task (graduating) and see it through to the end.

Experience, on the other hand, takes over from there. I've been in the engineering field for 34 years and everyone (I do mean everyone) coming out of college (in my field) has to be trained. It's like you get this MENSA brain, who is having to learn their ABC's once again. It's almost like they are a newborn baby having to learn everything in life. There is a period after being hired, where they have to get acclimated to the position. In contrast, with someone like myself, I have a High School Diploma and 68 units completed in college (but never graduated), my "acclimation" period is less than 1 day.

All my experience, HS diploma, no college degree and just last week I turned down a job at JPL NASA. Mainly because it is in Pasadena and that is just too long a commute for me. Besides, I have a good job I don't want to leave.

 

[nkgupta80]

some of the worst doctors have the most experience for they are unwilling to change with the times. I have experienced this first hand. One of the best doctors we ever had was fresh out of college. Helped save my daugters life.

On average a more experienced doctor will be better. Of course depending on the field of expertise, keeping up with current research is important for older doctors. Therefore a fresh out of college could be better suited.

I mean in the end, the doctor's thought process is akin to statistical estimation. You have past data (experience), and try to hypothesize the patient's affliction. A doctor who has more experience under his belt, has more to learn from and better guessing skills.

 

[Bodi]

On average a more experienced doctor will be better. Of course depending on the field of expertise, keeping up with current research is important for older doctors. Therefore a fresh out of college could be better suited.

I mean in the end, the doctor's thought process is akin to statistical estimation. You have past data (experience), and try to hypothesize the patient's affliction. A doctor who has more experience under his belt, has more to learn from and better guessing skills.

I understand and appreciate that logic, but many doctors that are older are also from the "one cure fits all" kinda logic and they just prescribe anti-biotics. This is not good. Anti-biotics are not really good for people ,and they are waaaaaay over prescribed.

Younger doctors are seemingly embracing more alternative methods... more time honored and practical methods instead of simply prescribing some drug.

Older doctors are resistant to change, and if their methods are lazy, then that is what you will see with regards to their medical assessment IMO and IME.

 

[nkgupta80]

I understand and appreciate that logic, but many doctors that are older are also from the "one cure fits all" kinda logic and they just prescribe anti-biotics. This is not good. Anti-biotics are not really good for people ,and they are waaaaaay over prescribed.

Younger doctors are seemingly embracing more alternative methods... more time honored and practical methods instead of simply prescribing some drug.

Older doctors are resistant to change, and if their methods are lazy, then that is what you will see with regards to their medical assessment IMO and IME.

ah from that point of view (alternative medicine and what not) i'll agree. I also agree that as doctors get older...many do get lazier and go for the one cure for all thing. But I would say this is much less of an issue with specialists and surgeons as opposed to a GP who's job has basically become to refer or prescribe.

 

[Bodi]

ah from that point of view (alternative medicine and what not) i'll agree. I also agree that as doctors get older...many do get lazier and go for the one cure for all thing. But I would say this is much less of an issue with specialists and surgeons as opposed to a GP who's job has basically become to refer or prescribe.

Sure... in surgery, we had a nice 55 year-old looking doctor that was an Infant Throat Specialist that was flown in from somewhere to do the surgery over the resident surgeon that was younger and not as qualified. I would not have had it the other way around, as my daughters life was literally on the line.

It appears that we agree on all points then? :2razz: