list problems?

Thu May 23 19:00:20 UTC 2002

At 02:42 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, Henry Yen wrote:
 >
 >On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:22:50AM -0700, Rachel K. Warren wrote:
 >
 >[ snip ]
 >
 >> Of course, there are exceptions to every rule - I've had managers and
 >> executive officers in the same companies I worked at who did not have
 >> degrees.  But more often than not, the degree was there.
 >
 >i was once taught that causation and correlation are different.

Stating as fact a causation simply because of a correlation (e.g. degrees 
== promotion) is probably not a good idea without other evidence.  However, 
lacking evidence or hypotheses to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to 
tentatively assume a causation given a strong correlation.

Assuming correlation and causation are completely unrelated is probably 
worse, since if there is a cause / effect relationship, correlation is 
bound to show up.

Given that we *do* have other evidence (e.g. HR department which ask for 
degrees when hiring & promoting), why would it be wrong to make a leap such 
that "a degree will help more than it will hurt".

As one person said, all else being equal (as it frequently is), a degree 
(or certification) is a great way to differentiate yourself.  Especially to 
the non-technical (like CFOs and HR departments).

The interesting thing about this long (and sometimes interesting) thread 
which keeps appearing here every year or two is that people without degrees 
seem to have value experience only, while people with degrees have a 
relatively high opinion of experience and degrees.

IOW: The people who have been to college tend like it, those who have not, 
do not.

Of course, that is just a correlation, and not even a 100% correlation at that.

 >Henry Yen                                       Aegis Information 
Systems, Inc.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick