What's it worth?
The Economist,
Jan 21, 2004
Definition is everything, and the proof is this example of a story that gets everything right but that misses the main point. What's right is the observation: employers are less frequently valuing a formal education, looking instead to an employee's demonstrated skills and attitude. Fair enough. But the article says that social mobility does not depend on education. That's just wrong: a person with a basic education, but no more, may get a job, but will not advance in their career or their life because they do not have the depth. The story, you see, defines "social mobility" as "getting a job". But of course, there is much more to social mobility. So there you have it: good data, bad definition, dumb conclusion.
Today: 0 Total: 1076 [Direct link] [Share]
