I just watched a video in which a university professor talked with students about cheating. Cheating is a big problem, but it’s one we created.
Universities should not be in the business of certifying that people know things. Their job should simply be to educate people, and to allow them to assess their own progress. Hiring companies should pay for separate testing services that certify that you know things. At the time they want to hire you, not decades earlier. For the knowledge that they care about.
Consider somebody with a degree in Physics from 2002. Are they right for the position you want to fill? Well, you don’t know, really. To begin with, that was 20 years ago; a lot has changed. And even for the parts that have NOT changed, if they haven’t been using some of that knowledge, it’s probably pretty stale. And how good was that university’s physics department around 2000? That particular professor — perhaps he wasn’t very good, or graded easy. Maybe what you really need is knowledge of particle physics, but they concentrated more on relativity. Should you prefer the candidate with the newer degree or the candidate with more experience? The employer can only infer so much from that university degree; they have a lot left to assess themselves! This is a fact of life in hiring; bad hires are made all the time, and they are expensive.
And crucially, the fact that employers are looking at diplomas and transcripts issued by schools means that students are trying to game them. There is an incentive to cheat. Even for those not cheating, there is an incentive to “learn things for the test.” The fact that universities publicly report their assessments of students CAUSES both cheating and the kind of shallow learning that evaporates a few weeks after the test.
If universities were just great places to learn, and a student could get a private assessment of their knowledge that would never be given to any company, then students would have no incentive to game tests. Rather, they would want an honest answer to the questions “If I were to apply right now for a job that required this knowledge, would I get through their testing? Would I be prepared to do the work that they need done?”
Then imagine that companies looking to hire list in the job posting the key knowledge areas they are going to have you tested on and the results they expect. Say linear algebra, calculus, quantum chromodynamics, Julia and Rust coding, whatever, all at least 90%. Candidates who think they are qualified can apply, get phone-screened, and then make an appointment at the company’s chosen testing service. Candidates get tested and are told their scores in each subject. The company pays the testing fees for everyone who meets the posted criteria, but if you really bomb a test, YOU pay part or all of it, as a disincentive, for wasting everyone’s time and money. Perhaps in our example the company would say that they will cover the costs if your score is at least 80%.
If a candidate recently tested in some of the subjects the company cares about, they can refer the company to that testing center, and the company might decide to just accept that result rather than have you re-test. If after testing a company needs more info to decide between several good candidates, they can send you back to the testing center for a few more assessments, a “round two.”
Imagine how much better this system would be. Professors no longer have to worry about testing; they get all that time and bother back. There is no longer even a need to produce unique tests every semester. The reason fresh tests are given, and given in class, is to make it harder to cheat; if there is no incentive to cheat in school, then students can take the tests online and get immediate feedback. Since tests are not single-use, you invest more time in them, making them better tests. Furthermore, any errors or ambiguities get corrected. You also invest in good video explanations of the test problems, for students reviewing what they got wrong. Students can take the tests as often as they want. If they feel like crap on the day of the test, they can reschedule it; it does not matter whether other students have taken the test already. Students can reassess what they learned three years ago, to see how well they remember it. Students’ focus in school shifts from cramming for tests for better grades to thoroughly learning the material so that they will be able to use it years later.
Meanwhile, hiring companies get an assessment of your CURRENT skills, in the areas that they care about, from a testing service that they trust. The testing is tailored to their needs, and they know what the assessment means — their existing staff has taken pretty similar tests under pretty similar conditions.
In fact, maybe the employer doesn’t really care about the degree itself; they just want to know that you have the skills to do the work that they need done. If you can learn that on your own, then perhaps that’s good enough. If non-university education mechanisms arise that produce students who can show that they have the knowledge you need for your business, well good for them — more of that, please.
The fact that schools publicly report their student assessments is a ROOT CAUSE of significant problems in our education system.
Stray Thoughts 