I'm not convinced that the word 'signalling' does imply superficiality or hypocrisy or anything like that - it's just a term from contract theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Fine, agreed that the meaning of "signalling" in economic context does correspond to the usage made in the OP, even if the meaning of "signalling" in social context does not.
Outside of specialized contexts, the word "signalling" has the mundane connotation of communication, in which a sender has the agency and freedom to pick any kind of signal to send. While applying for a job, I can freely "signal" that I naturally prioritize the robustness of the work over the deadline, or naturally prioritize the deadline over the robustness of the work, or whatever I judge would be the most adequate signal to send in the circumstance, but I am not free to "signal" that I have a Cambridge MSc if I don't have one. Such a degree effectively *is* a filter. A person may have the agency to communicate a signal of their choosing, but not to be passed by a given filter.
Why raise all this; the premise of the article is virtually grounded on the "mundane" meaning of signalling, while purporting to refer to the "economic" meaning. It's like, if we prove that education is "just" signalling, then it has no true value. On the contrary! The "no true value" conclusion is false, and its falsity is easier to grasp if we replace "signalling" with "filtering". To the degree that the filtering is indeed centered around the combination of intelligence and willpower - the "Smart, and gets things done" in Spolsky terms - its true value is huge. Getting into university is primarily a filter on intelligence. Finishing its studies is a filter on intelligence and willpower both.
It's *really costly* for the knowledge-based industries to sift people in the way that academia could and should have sifted them beforehand. Whereas, if academia *stops* being a filter for intelligence-combined-with-willpower, then it indeed becomes harder to refute the "no true value" assessment.
I'm not convinced that the word 'signalling' does imply superficiality or hypocrisy or anything like that - it's just a term from contract theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Fine, agreed that the meaning of "signalling" in economic context does correspond to the usage made in the OP, even if the meaning of "signalling" in social context does not.
Outside of specialized contexts, the word "signalling" has the mundane connotation of communication, in which a sender has the agency and freedom to pick any kind of signal to send. While applying for a job, I can freely "signal" that I naturally prioritize the robustness of the work over the deadline, or naturally prioritize the deadline over the robustness of the work, or whatever I judge would be the most adequate signal to send in the circumstance, but I am not free to "signal" that I have a Cambridge MSc if I don't have one. Such a degree effectively *is* a filter. A person may have the agency to communicate a signal of their choosing, but not to be passed by a given filter.
Why raise all this; the premise of the article is virtually grounded on the "mundane" meaning of signalling, while purporting to refer to the "economic" meaning. It's like, if we prove that education is "just" signalling, then it has no true value. On the contrary! The "no true value" conclusion is false, and its falsity is easier to grasp if we replace "signalling" with "filtering". To the degree that the filtering is indeed centered around the combination of intelligence and willpower - the "Smart, and gets things done" in Spolsky terms - its true value is huge. Getting into university is primarily a filter on intelligence. Finishing its studies is a filter on intelligence and willpower both.
It's *really costly* for the knowledge-based industries to sift people in the way that academia could and should have sifted them beforehand. Whereas, if academia *stops* being a filter for intelligence-combined-with-willpower, then it indeed becomes harder to refute the "no true value" assessment.