Maggie's Farm

Science does not prove anything in strict terms. Science merely provides a disciplined process by which the most probable explanation (theory) of a set of observations at a defined scale and within defined bounds can be determined. But a scientist must always be open to new evidence that forces the rethinking of the theory.

The BA has almost always been a screening technique rather than advanced skills. The theory being that the college graduate had, by the nature of the their classes, learned to order their thoughts and ferret out knowledge from original sources. As such, the college graduate had more potential beyond the immediate job than their non-college counterpart. It was, and still is, playing the odds by employers although the signal of the college degree is growing weaker.

As we know from history those nations that "implement[ed] long-term planning, strict regulation of business, more taxation, more government spending and reversals of privatization to return key infrastructure to public control" were paragons of environmental stewardship. Those nations developed alternatives to coal and wood for heating and cooking. They made machinery, vehicles and appliances both more energy efficient and safer to operate. As well as less of an impact on the environment.

You have to matriculate at an "elite" college for a lot of years to become that ignorant of economics, history, science and technology.


Now, having observed this, let us turn back to the question of whether a college degree is representative of advanced skills or a screening technique.

I submit that at the NYTimes the college degree is a screen to ensure their employees have the "right" opinions. Which they then use in writing in the NY Times, which is itself used as a screening technique by the monied, but low class, readers of the NY Times.