With the general inaccessibility of college in the US (with AGI, they’re basically pay to play), would Chess or Go be a good qualifier for job mental acuity?
Both can be monitored on the spot and certified by third-party associations.
With the general inaccessibility of college in the US (with AGI, they’re basically pay to play), would Chess or Go be a good qualifier for job mental acuity?
Both can be monitored on the spot and certified by third-party associations.
You’ve misread the situation, mate. I am very much pro college. I’ve been.
I also know of several studies showing that laymen are better problem solvers than the college educated, because they aren’t confined within the academic box.
A chess or Go ranking shows dedication – often years of it.
Hmmm, then I guess my confusion is as follows:
College, like being good at Chess or Go, also shows dedication for years. But one is dedicated to learning applicable skills in certain academic fields, while the other is showing dedication in Chess or Go. AI can be used in both academia and gaming, so the real test would still come down to the interview process. I guess I don’t agree that dedication is the sole thing that is measured in an interview, or that being good at Chess or Go is a better metric of dedication than a college diploma. I think that adding a Chess or Go ranking on your resume could be a good ice breaker, and a good chance to show your dedication outside of academia, but I fail to see how it shows you are more dedicated to studying. And again while games are great for mental health, they don’t teach you anything other than the game itself (maybe some tangential soft skills in cost benefit analysis or risk assessment or something). But even then, those skills wouldn’t show up in a one off chess tournament at an interview. Further, a structured learning of those same skills culminating in a test of those skills with comparable metrics to others who have tested those skills, would give a better idea of how the applicant has mastered those skills, a la, a diploma.
I would disagree, and say there’s a reason tech companies prefer hiring self-educated programmers over college-educated ones.
https://cybernews.com/editorial/experiment-tech-companies-eager-hire-self-taught-pros/
https://www.workforce.com/news/companies-eagerly-tapping-self-taught-tech-talent
https://medium.com/@coders.stop/why-self-taught-developers-are-outperforming-cs-grads-at-top-companies-57df7305b8ab
https://www.ciodive.com/news/rise-of-the-self-taught-developer-disrupting-recruiting-education/416869/
https://workshift.org/amid-ai-and-labor-market-changes-companies-look-to-grow-their-own-skilled-workers/
Do you have a source for that claim?
Everything I’m reading is saying the opposite. AI can do what the self taught programmers can do, so the barrier to entry is higher, and degrees are more important in a post AI world.
https://research.com/advice/is-a-software-development-degree-better-than-experience-alone-salary-hiring-career-growth-compared
https://www.burningglassinstitute.org/research/skills-based-hiring-the-long-road-from-pronouncements-to-practice