|
|
| Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed (935021) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Mon Apr 23 18:46:53 2012, in response to Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed, posted by JayMan on Mon Apr 23 12:56:41 2012. About your Facebook post:Indeed, part of the problem stems from advances in technology which has wiped out jobs. I also agree that the new fields created by these advances (mostly in IT and hardware/software engineering) require higher IQs than the positions such technology replaced. However, you're not going to increase the productivity of those in the "normal" IQ range without proper training, so I will again insist on education reform (though I believe you also said something along those lines, in the form of vocational/trades/training programs for cats in the normal IQ range). One solution is the combination of higher standards with integrated psychometric testing at the high-school level (e.g. via a more g-loaded SAT on par with the SATs of old); thus your "standardized" tests now give IQ scores that can be assessed against the average bachelor-level IQ of 115. That said, I'll refer once again to the table of IQ scores by major I linked to in the OP; the lowest estimated average IQ score among college grads is 103 (social work major; note that this is one point below the high-school grad average). Most branches of education are marginally higher; education majors themselves are estimated at 110. This may also be a problem; you mentioned a dearth in science/engineering due to jobs not being filled (presumably not enough high-IQ scientists/engineers). You'd presumably need higher-IQ individuals to properly teach advanced scientific/engineering concepts AND enough people of high enough IQ to grasp the material! (There's that understanding thing again!) About demographics and the vicious cycle of poverty: Curb illegal immigration - period. That'd be step 1. However, you'd probably have to reform wages also; so long as unemployment/welfare checks are higher than a typical low wage position, there is little incentive for individuals in those situations to seek work. Now I'm not saying cut welfare/unemployment (I'm against such cuts), but methinks you'd have to do one of the following: 1) Raise the minimum wage (such that the min-wage job offers more than welfare/unemployment and thus incentivizes such work among the lower IQ/working classes) 2) In lieu of idea 1, reform the low-wage jobs such that there is upward mobility (i.e. modest raises/promotions for achieving certain benchmarks on the job). Many jobs may already have this, but I believe many more don't. all else being equal, even in many shitty jobs, higher IQ (as determined by education level) is better than lower IQ...Aside from the structural problems I talked about above (automation, low IQ masses, globalization), the other problem is signalling. Many jobs that don't need a bachelor's level knowledge or ability to perform, still ask for them because a 4-year college degree is a signal of conscientiousness and discipline. If employers are using the bachelor's requirement for "signalling" purposes then this is another problem, though I'm not entirely convinced this requirement is used solely for this purpose. I say this only because a person's connections may enable him/her to get jobs they'd otherwise be unqualified for, even taking IQ into consideration. I've even heard stories from friends about how cats embellished degree/experience info on their resumes and were offered high-paying gigs as a result. Meanwhile, cats who are honest on their resumes and who also have what it takes are left up the creek. You can't accurately gauge conscientiousness on this wise if cats regularly lie or embellish info. That said, I guess that'd be another argument for psychometric testing... Only eugenics offers any hope of a long-term solution, along with a serious thought of limiting immigration (even of high-IQ individuals...glad I'm already here). I'm not convinced. For one, the option of voluntary sterilization already exists (although it is mainly for contraceptive/health purposes; see here for a description of one such organization). Secondly, I wouldn't curtail immigration of high-IQ foreigners while leaving the illegal immigration problem unsolved (and even if/when such problem is curtailed, I still wouldn't favor such a measure; the combination of reduced illegal immigration and legal immigration of high-IQ individuals might collectively raise the average IQ of the nation). visit my blog! |
|
|
|