Why should I take a degree seriously if schools don't?

[Mr. Purple]

Greetings forumites.
I have written/argued before that I don't consider a 4-year degree to be the acid-test of credibility like many do. I wholeheartedly support education (I am in part, an educator by profession), but recognize that this can/should/does take a variety of forms, and that people travel on a variety of paths as they attain knowledge. Yes, I am absolutely personally invested in this argument- admitted- moving on.

Ever take a wonderlic test? Here is a sample, though if you are clever enough to have turned your computer on, assume you will get a 50/50. (http://www.professormoney.com/wonderlic%20sample%20test.htm)

Long story short, there is a big to-do about a football (and I mean that in the god-fearing 'merican sense of the word) player set to come into the NFL that got a 48/50.

Linky (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Greg-McElroy-almost-aced-the-Wonderlic-Is-he-to?urn=ncaaf-327510).

If you look at the test, you may come to the same conclusion I did. Namely, that any high school graduate should be able to ace this thing. Provided this sample is at all reflective of the actual test and I did not miss something about having to complete it while actually in the act of disarming a thermal nuclear device, upside down in a milk jug, wearing a straight jacket in front of a live studio audience that was promised a live donkey show, but got stuck with you instead.

A college student (let alone graduate) should be insulted by this test.

Now, there are thousands of athletes that have degrees from legitimate institutions of higher learning- from UF to Harvard. Yet, the list of athletes who score in the upper regions is pathetically short. This is no surprise if you have ever heard some of them talk. From the article:
A 48 is twice the league average for incoming QBs,
In case there are any football players reading, that means most dudes got a 24.

For those unfamiliar with (The lord's version) of Football- the QB (Quarterback) is essentially an on-field coach. They will no doubt be the highest scorers as a group, most of the intelligent players in the NFL are going to be QBs*. The counter argument of course is Terry Bradshaw.

At any rate, why isn't Harvard (etc.), taking this student's education more seriously? Shouldn't all college graduates be able to muster better than a 24?

So, if Auburn/UCLA/your school of choice, doesn't take their diploma that seriously, why should I?

To pre-extinguish- I have nothing against athletes what-so-ever. I wasn't hung on lockers in highschool, nor do I have any problem with them gaming the system. My point is not "hey-look-at-the-dumb-jocks", I am angry with how the people who are supposed to be the critical thinkers in society (including those at the univeristy, leaders of industry, etc.) are allowing me to make this argument.

TL;DR
The degree from school X serves as proof of your education.
Truly uneducated person A, has a degree from school X.
School X's diploma cannot be regarded as proof of education.

Where is the flaw in the logic?



*Please don't derail into a big issue here as though this were sports talk radio. I am painting with a broad, but more or less accurate brush. There are smart players at other positions, but the QB position is one where intelligence has a higher relative return on investment. Obviously there are retarded quarterbacks- #7 played for my team at one point.

[lionking]

Did all the gridiron (:p) players who did this test go through college? If so, I tend to agree with you. I'll get my 15 year old daughter to do the sample test later, and I bet she gets 15 out of 15.

[ehcks]

As far as number 5 goes, I could say that present and reserve are contradictory.

Present (verb)
2: to make a gift to
3: to give or bestow formally

Reserve (verb)
1
a: to hold in reserve
c: to retain or hold over to a future time or place

Seems pretty contradictory to me, but the answer was "Neither same nor opposite."

[Mr. Purple]

Did all the gridiron (:p) players who did this test go through college? If so, I tend to agree with you. I'll get my 15 year old daughter to do the sample test later, and I bet she gets 15 out of 15.

Most, probably not all.

Pro football players don't need to have a college degree in the first place. I just wish they would separate the two endeavors entirely.

[RPG Advocate]

Be aware that the Wonderlic is timed. The questions themselves are fairly easy, but you only have a very short time to complete the test (10 minutes IIRC).

[Mr. Purple]

As far as number 5 goes, I could say that present and reserve are contradictory.

Present (verb)
2: to make a gift to
3: to give or bestow formally

Reserve (verb)
1
a: to hold in reserve
c: to retain or hold over to a future time or place

Seems pretty contradictory to me, but the answer was "Neither same nor opposite."

I had the same thought for a second, but they don't feel like "classic" antonyms to me. I think you are looking far, far, far, far, deeper into the essence of the question than the authors ever anticipated. In a philosophy/language context you would have more of a point than in this one.

And, I am not sure if I have "welcoming privileges" yet, but welcome!

[truethat]

The reason you go to college is to learn how to learn and how to think. You don't go to college to learn how to pass tests. I wouldn't have a business if they taught you how to do that.

I would suggest to you something that might sound snobby but you asked. I can usually tell as I've gotten older, when a person doesn't have an education. Most people don't have a strong education and when you get around educated people the demeanor shifts immediately in the conversation.

Next, your education is the only thing people cannot take away from you. That was a huge motivator.

Also "name dropper" educated people are people who went to school to learn "what" to think, not how to think. You don't need to have a great education in order to be a great thinker. However putting yourself through a system that requires papers and readings does kind of train your brain more, than doing it on your own.

IMHO

Now I have to take the test.

[Mr. Purple]

Be aware that the Wonderlic is timed. The questions themselves are fairly easy, but you only have a very short time to complete the test (10 minutes IIRC).

Noted, it changes my opinion this *holds fingers really close together* much. :)

Just kidding...by "timed" I will assume you mean suspended on a rotted rope over a pit of alligators. Goat's blood is dripping on the rope, and rats have been lowered onto the rope to gnaw through it. At this time, you will plummet to your chompy doom. You don't have a knife in your boot, nor even underwear. How is it that Kathleen Turner used to be pretty hot?

...sorry...what were we talking about?

[truethat]

. Assume the first two statements are true.

1. The boy plays baseball.
2. All baseball players wear hats.
3. The boy wears a hat

Is the final one:
True
False
Not Certain

what are these kinds of questions called. I need to look up more of them

[DevilsAdvocate]

I’m not sure what the rant is about. Most companies don’t take seriously a degree in art, sociology, communications, or kinesiology.

I don’t know what the wonderlic test has to do with it. At best it is am apptitude test of how well someone might do academically. There isn’t really anything that anybody is going to learn in college that is going to help them do better on the wonderlic test. That just isn’t what is gained from a college education.

[Beerina]

Long story short, there is a big to-do about a football (and I mean that in the god-fearing 'merican sense of the word) player set to come into the NFL that got a 48/50.

Well, anyone could make a mistake or two.

I recall some kid from my high school who was good at baseball being unable to get a 17 on the ACT, the minimum required for college sports eligibility.

[Accidental Martyr]

Greg McElroy is a graduate of my Alma mater, The University of Alabama, so I would just like to say...........



Roll Tide!
;)

[Captain_Swoop]

I have never understood why recruiting players for Football is tied to going to College.

Where else in the world are pro sports teams subsidised by the education system?

Let them scout and train their own players like everyone else.

[Aepervius]

Be aware that the Wonderlic is timed. The questions themselves are fairly easy, but you only have a very short time to complete the test (10 minutes IIRC).

I got a 15/15 and i spent, what, 2 minutes ? maybe even less ? I was jsut shocked the question were so easy I spent half the tiem rereading the 2 first question three time to see where the "trap" is ....

[Andrew Wiggin]

Be aware that the Wonderlic is timed. The questions themselves are fairly easy, but you only have a very short time to complete the test (10 minutes IIRC).

This is true.

The real thing is more than 15 questions too; the OP's link goes to a sample of the 'what the wonderlic is like' variety. The real test is 50 questions, of vaguely the same sort, with IIRC 10 or 12 minutes to complete. That's 14 seconds per question or less.

An average score is 20, and apparently correlates well in a statistical sense with an IQ of 100. From taking both IQ and the Wonderlic, I'd say the Wonderlic is more a 'common sense under pressure' assessment and the IQ test is more a 'puzzle solving skills' assessment. I can see a quarterback needing common sense under pressure a lot more than the ability to solve logic puzzles.

As for the impression that the Wonderlic is easy or simple, we need to remember that a good deal of classroom time is spent learning precisely that sort of puzzle. Teachers teach to the test. A student who finds the wonderlic easy is one who payed attention in class and can apply their common sense to solving simple problems while the clock ticks. That may be the OP, (or may not; the OP did not mention taking the wonderlic, only being appalled by the simplicity of a third party sample) but it's certainly not humanity as a whole.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I got a 15/15 and i spent, what, 2 minutes ? maybe even less ? I was jsut shocked the question were so easy I spent half the tiem rereading the 2 first question three time to see where the "trap" is ....

The test you took was not the wonderlic. It's a 'this is what the wonderlic is like' example test. I'd say it's vaguely similar, but shorter, simpler and untimed. If you want to take the real thing, you can probably get it cheaply at a job placement service.

[Mr. Purple]

I think my point was lost.

If I went to an institution of higher learning with the expressed goal of obtaining a degree to prove my education, and I saw that there were other graduates of my school that couldn't manage a 40 on this test, I would ask for my money back.

The point of obtaining a degree is to "prove" that you are educated.
A college degree is obviously not reflective of this, as they continue to churn out truly uneducated people armed with diplomas.

Mind you, I have long been appalled at some of the people who have degrees in day to day life, athletes simply make a good test case for my point.

[JAStewart]

I got 51 on that test.

[drkitten]

I think my point was lost.

If I went to an institution of higher learning with the expressed goal of obtaining a degree to prove my education, and I saw that there were other graduates of my school that couldn't manage a 40 on this test, I would ask for my money back.

That's asinine. The Wonderlic isn't an education test, but an IQ test; it measures (roughly) how smart you are, not how well educated you are. There's nothing in it that touches college-level material. Even the much maligned degrees in English lit,.... there's nothing in the sample test (or the Wonderlic itself) that actually measures familiarity with literature.

That's like complaining that college failed you because you don't need a college education to pass your driving test.

[drkitten]

I have never understood why recruiting players for Football is tied to going to College.

Historical reasons.

Professional football is a relatively recent arrival on the scene; while there were professional football teams around in the 1930s, no one really took them seriously until the early 70s when the Superbowl really started to take off and they started to get huge TV ratings.

Before 1970, college football was where the glory and excitement was. Pro football was just something some college athletes did part-time after they graduated, mostly for fun (you were really worth something if you got paid $5000 a year to play pro football in the 1950s....)

So when the NFL started up, college football was where the obvious pipeline was. The best players were already playing for the major colleges, so that was where you wanted to recruit. There was no point in trying to recruit high school students (who typically weren't skilled enough or big enough anyway) and there wasn't enough money to support the NFL itself, let alone a farm system of minor league teams like they have in baseball and hockey.

[Psi Baba]

The counter argument of course is Terry Bradshaw.
Not to derail, but Terry Bradshaw was one of the few quarterbacks to call his own plays (without the benefit of a laptop and a laminated color-coded spreadsheet), and he won four Superbowls doing it. Do you have any proof that he is the "counter argument"?

[truethat]

I think my point was lost.

If I went to an institution of higher learning with the expressed goal of obtaining a degree to prove my education, and I saw that there were other graduates of my school that couldn't manage a 40 on this test, I would ask for my money back.

The point of obtaining a degree is to "prove" that you are educated.
A college degree is obviously not reflective of this, as they continue to churn out truly uneducated people armed with diplomas.

Mind you, I have long been appalled at some of the people who have degrees in day to day life, athletes simply make a good test case for my point.


The degree doesn't "prove" that you are educated. You seem to be looking at college as some sort of a trade school. In that regard if you are not interested in academic development, you are better off in just getting a certificate of some sort at a trade school.

You can get college degrees online anywhere these days. Going to University of Phoenix, doesn't prove you are educated. It usually is something along the lines of a "trade school." When you have this on your resume it just covers job requirements that expect you to have a "degree."

That is not the same thing as an education.

[blutoski]

If I went to an institution of higher learning with the expressed goal of obtaining a degree to prove my education, and I saw that there were other graduates of my school that couldn't manage a 40 on this test, I would ask for my money back.

The point of obtaining a degree is to "prove" that you are educated.

Well... specifically, to 'prove' one is educated in a specific subject (thus the different degrees).

The way to test this would be to see if somebody with a BSc in math knew more about math than the average person.




A college degree is obviously not reflective of this, as they continue to churn out truly uneducated people armed with diplomas.

I don't think this test is evaluating 'educated'. It's an aptitude test.

[AvalonXQ]

The degree from school X serves as proof of your education.
Truly uneducated person A, has a degree from school X.
School X's diploma cannot be regarded as proof of education.

Where is the flaw in the logic?

None, but consider the following instead:

The degree from school X serves as proof either of your education or your athletic prowess.
Truly uneducated athlete A, has a degree from school X.
School X's diploma can still be regarded as proof of education for nonathlete B.

Any flaw in that logic?