the myth of the "skills gap"

Well, couple the anecdote with practical evidence and it seems pretty clear, most jobs now have this line: X-Y years experience and bachelor degree required, if it were for any other purpose than certification you'd think employers would be more specific about what you got your degree in.

Why not? We know education acts as a signaling mechanism, sure you learn stuff along the way but how much of it is pertinent to a persons career?

 

The weak screening hypothesis only tells us education serves a dual function, with human capital also delivered. You cannot use it to derive a 'education has more to do with certification than human capital' conclusion

 

I'm just now learning about the weak and strong screening hypothesis, what's the short version of the difference between the two?

Then why is it, at least at the bachelor degree level, does what you got your degree in matter so little? My guess would be above the BS/BA level the human capital aspect would be much more important but I have no idea if the evidence supports that.

 

Strong= its just down to certification; weak= it also serves a human capital role/.

First, it depends on the career (and therefore the human capital being delivered; i.e. there will be general skills achieved through tertiary education). Second, there are significant differences in the returns to education (demonstrating that there are specific human capital outcomes achieved)

 

The recession / shock sent the labor supply curve to the right, not the left. The companies reduction in income / profits meant the company had employees that weren't able to increase (or maintain) their profits, causing layoffs. Some companies even added pay cuts.

 

How does an employer evaluate "human capital" during the interviewing process?

A big part of the hiring process is reducing the pool of candidates to a managable size. A list is created of elements required for a candidate to be considered, the right degree, the right number of years or the right experience, etc. This doesn't assure the best hires, just the best defence a manager has, if the new hire turns out to be lousy.

How many high school / college kids know what they are good at in the work world, when their primary experience is school? Once hired, an employee has more opportunity to change their work to better fit their capabilities. When this happens, the employer wins, as does the employee.

These people are at a disadvantage when time comes for the employee to find another job, and employers that limit their considered candidates to those with the right degree (no matter the experience). That is somewhat offset by networking (then the risk for the hire is shifted to the recommender).

 

This is another illustration that supply & demand is quite beyond you. The recession reflects a disequilibrium. A rightward shift would require an exogenous influx such as a socio-economic inspired labour force spike

 

Your statement demonstrates you don't understand supply and demand. To the individual being laid off, it doesn't matter if the supply goes up, or the demand goes down.

 

For a supply shift you need a change in the labour force (e.g. A rightward shift because of inward migration). You referred to, at best, a disequilibrium (where employment levels aren't sufficient for a voluntary unemployment result). There's no debate in it. You have again made basic error. All a little tedious!