Theme: Incentives

UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ. You pay 150k in debt, four years of earning, four years of life, one or two fewer children, delayed homeownership, on what’s nothing more than a class, personality, and IQ test. That’s all it is. There is no evidence you learn anything in university unless it’s math, comp-sci, or engineering, that can’t be taught part-time in two years or less. The rest is ‘recreation’ or ‘indoctrination’. Now, you will find that CEO’s tend to the 130 IQ range for deterministic reasons (I have an undergrad in art history and founded a dozen companies). And the demand for CEO talent varies dramatically by sector. Some are political (GM), some technical, some engineering, some finance. The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete. So your argument is well-intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ. If you study for example Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and Stanford JD courses it’s postmodern drivel. It’s intellectually embarrassing. If you study at a state school or just read the literature, and apprentice (in the past) you’d do better. Universities don’t teach. They Sort. That’s all they do.

UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ. You pay 150k in debt, four years of earning, four years of life, one or two fewer children, delayed homeownership, on what’s nothing more than a class, personality, and IQ test. That’s all it is. There is no evidence you learn anything in university unless it’s math, comp-sci, or engineering, that can’t be taught part-time in two years or less. The rest is ‘recreation’ or ‘indoctrination’. Now, you will find that CEO’s tend to the 130 IQ range for deterministic reasons (I have an undergrad in art history and founded a dozen companies). And the demand for CEO talent varies dramatically by sector. Some are political (GM), some technical, some engineering, some finance. The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete. So your argument is well-intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ. If you study for example Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and Stanford JD courses it’s postmodern drivel. It’s intellectually embarrassing. If you study at a state school or just read the literature, and apprentice (in the past) you’d do better. Universities don’t teach. They Sort. That’s all they do.