Worst College Majors for Your Career

[bovertine]

Oh, a small item for consideration. Both Newt Gingrich and Elliot Spitzer scored extrremely well on their standardized tests. Many politicians did.

or the gentleman that tried to serve his wife divorce papers while she was in hospital for cancer treatment-what else am I suppose to think?

Newt Gingrich, National Merit Finalist

[Bay]

My take on Canuckguy's position is that he thinks our "ruling class," whatever that means, ought to be composed of only the highest Math SAT scorers. I don't think he has sufficiently thought through how that would work or why it would be best.

[Canuckguy]

The responsiblity for acting on the recommendations lies with the policymaker, but that doesn't mean those who recommend it don't believe it is the better course of action, given the fact that all models have limitations.

You are making my argument for me here. This is precisely why the policymaker must be wiser than his advisors and not the other way around. My feeling is that the people responsible for putting the Li formula into action only saw the money sign, and were mathematically out of their depth.

In too many of these cases, I suspect the unhooked are working for the hooked. It should at least be the other way around.

So if these supposedly hyperintelligent advisors were the policymakers, they would make the same decision. If not, they are certainly dishonest, because they always come out on the talk shows to defend their boss's actions.

I never expect policymakers to make the best decisions at all times. They are human beings. I do expect them to be wise, experienced in the craft of leadership, and morally beyond reproach. If they are clearly not up to the job, vote for someone else next time around.

Oh, a small item for consideration. Both Newt Gingrich and Elliot Spitzer scored extrremely well on their standardized tests. Many politicians did.

As I said in an earlier post, intelligence is a necessary but insufficient condition...


BTW, my apologies for losing my cool. Yesterday, your post (308) looked like a deliberate attempt to muddle the issue, but it does not seem so bad now. I over-reacted.

[Canuckguy]

My take on Canuckguy's position is that he thinks our "ruling class," whatever that means, ought to be composed of only the highest Math SAT scorers.

The Rivera study filled me with despair, but the Manzi article is giving me new hope. His approach, with some adjustment, would be the best vehicle for selecting a ruling class that I know.

Think about it. A cut-off of 750 on the Math, 1500 overall, and tough courses with a minimum of 3.5 is an excellent starter. You then add 3 layers of interview, each tougher than the previous, mixing case studies with “let’s talk about you and us” discussions, a test for psychopathy, and instead of EC, previous administrative experience with distinction etc. should just about do it.

It is much more nuanced than just “highest Math SAT scorers”

[NJSue]

Test scores, college courses, psychological tests, and interviews (which are performances and can be faked) don't indicate moral character or civic leadership ability. I don't want a "ruling class"; I accept that every society has elites, but one should be able to earn entrance to the elite through measures other than cognitive ability and self-presentation skills, both helpful but insufficient for gifted leadership.

Your suggestion alsy bypasses the thorny question of who gets to "select" the ruling class in a democracy. Read Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites.

[absweetmarie]

If NJSue says to read a book, I'm reading it! Thanks for this perspective.

[cromette]

Brava, NJSue - well said. I could not POSSIBLY agree more. I've known far too may "intelligent" idiots, and far too many noble, pragmatic, fantastic leaders with exceptional organizational skills who know how use resources wisely, discern justly and make SOLID decisions who might score in the 85-90 percentile.

I also reject the notion of a "ruling class".

[bovertine]

BTW, my apologies for losing my cool. Yesterday, your post (308) looked like a deliberate attempt to muddle the issue, but it does not seem so bad now. I over-reacted.

Post 308 contained specific counter-examples to a point you made, although I understand you fail to recognize that. When I brought up Newt Gingrich in another post it was as a response to your specific use of a story about him as example of why you would prefer high scoring leaders. In fact, your own example was a clear counterexample to your own argument, which is likely why you chose to ignore my post about it.

History is littered with stories of highly intelligent people making stupid decisions. I suspect Richard Nixon scored very highly on standardized exams, and he certainly made his share of mistakes.

In too many of these cases, I suspect the unhooked are working for the hooked. It should at least be the other way around.

You are the poster who claims to be so fond of data. But twice you have made statements like this with no evidence. The political class (and the elite commentariat that wields tremendous influence) is replete with individuals I'm certain scored very highly on standardized exams, including numerous Rhodes Scholars, who I'm also fairly certain obtained elite admission on their own steam. On both sides of the aisle. George Pataki, Rob Portman, Charles Shumer, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (both supposedly with near perfect SATs), John Sununu, Robert Reich, George Stephanopolous, EJ Dionne, both Clintons, Bobby Jindal. I could go on and on.

[Hunt]

I think it's a surprising discovery to many people that two highly intelligent, well-educated, and civic-minded people can have diametrically opposed views on an important topic--on which both of them are acknowledged experts.

My personal evaluation of this situation is that nobody is quite as smart as he thinks he is.

[bovertine]

^^^
Amen.

[absweetmarie]

I'm certain I'm not as smart as I think I am! I am also certain that whatever brains I do have are not always as useful in solving problems as some of the other attributes I've acquired or honed over the years (mostly after graduating from college): a sense of humor, respect for other people's opinions, a willingness to listen to other points of view, the good sense to stop talking when I should stop talking (it's sooner than I'm ready, most of the time). I could go on.

[Pizzagirl]

Think about it. A cut-off of 750 on the Math, 1500 overall, and tough courses with a minimum of 3.5 is an excellent starter. You then add 3 layers of interview, each tougher than the previous, mixing case studies with “let’s talk about you and us” discussions, a test for psychopathy, and instead of EC, previous administrative experience with distinction etc. should just about do it.

ROFL. I think there is a certain kind of utter dorkiness on CC at times -- people often highly gifted in math / STEM matters - who seriously and honestly think that those abilities should be the drivers of "success." Often these people think that life is full of predetermined right decisions and intelligence consists on finding the correct answer. These often tend to be people who "just can't understand" the value of the 2200 SAT kid who demonstrates leadership in his community over the 2350 SAT kid who doesn't, and they keep repeating plaintively, "But the 2350 SAT kid is smarter!! See?" They are really kind of hopeless and non-observant about what makes success in real life, which is why so many of them are stuck in the jobs they are.

[absweetmarie]

^^^
Exactly.

[Pizzagirl]

How dumb do you have to be not to get that mathematical ability is just one form of intelligence, and there are many forms? And I say this as someone who always tested extremely well on standardized testing and was a math major myself.

And how dumb do you have to be not to look around and get that people who are successful (however one defines successful) get that way because of factors other than book-smarts?

[Canuckguy]

Test scores, college courses, psychological tests, and interviews (which are performances and can be faked) don't indicate moral character or civic leadership ability. I don't want a "ruling class"…

I don’t think it is that easy to fake it. Do read the Jim Manzi article again. I don’t care for a ruling class either, but there is going to be one whether you want it or not. All you can do is to influence the selection of this ruling class if you are fortunate enough to live in a country where this is possible.

Your suggestion alsy bypasses the thorny question of who gets to "select" the ruling class in a democracy. Read Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites.

Based on the sentiment here on CC, I vote for Harvard and her adcom. Seems like they can do no wrong.

Looking at book reviews, Lasch is basically saying that the system is not working. Is that not what I have been saying as well? He seems to blame it on the professional class. My feeling is that the professional class are work slaves too, having to answer to the ruling class (the elites, if you will) that pay their salary. They have their own cross to bear so I would not be as hard on them as Lasch probably would.