Readit NewsSo keep it simple, quality and don't get distracted by shiny things.
Either lawmakers should not be allowed to own stock, or insider trading shouldn’t be a crime, though the latter option is a lot more abusable.
Of course signaling is not wasteful. Caplan, like any good economist, would readily agree (prices as signals is a cornerstone in microeconomic theory). Employers need a mechanism to identify who is worth hiring, which for entry level jobs is typically the college degree. The problem is that a college degree is an extraordinarily expensive signaling device to obtain, and in a population saturated with college degrees they become less meaningful, and those without degrees have no chance at competing even if they would be better suited for a particular job.
To me, The Case Against Education is a prompt to identify or create more efficient signals. In regular conversation it seems like most people agree that college is too expensive and really you're just in it for the "piece of paper" at the end, yet when you formalize the arguments folks get defensive and will pontificate on the intangible value of a liberal arts education.
I’d hate to have college only be for people with means to pay. But I think tuition fee increases have far outpaced inflation.
I don't have the confidence that they will.
0. https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Unsinkable-A-Young-Woma...
Isnt this even more necessary for them to learn the fundementals? Especially if Physicians claim that they are both Art and Science, which is why we can't merely use science for diagnosis and treatment.
So they do learn fundamentals but fundamentals do not come out of research papers.
n=1 anecdote here:
When I was in research track biochem and bumped into premed students, nearly the entire population of premed didn't seem to care about the science behind what they were learning. They formed a very different social clique. The "top students" in that set were sharing previous years' organic chemistry exams and none of them would read papers or get involved in research. They were entirely disinterested in the science.
In my interactions with general practitioners, I like to talk about medicines' method of actions, pharmacology, the actual biochemistry behind diseases. Most of them seem to have no clue or retention of this information. I'm not trying to challenge them, either -- I'm generally curious to learn.
That's not to say all doctors are like that. A lot of the surgeons and specialists I know are walking tomes of information.
Once you get to medical research groups that formulate those protocols, that’s where research becomes important.
Also what all others have mentioned below.