From this perspective, the signaling theory sounds naively optimistic, because it assumes that everything actually happened for a reason, however indirect. It probably didn’t.
For what Signaling Theory (ST) points at to be right:
There has to be a reason. (Not just because.)
That reason is something like: ‘People want to look good, and people get something for looking good.’
So people do/try to do things that:
make them look good
or that they think make them look good
Or at the next level up, acting like they believe X makes them look good...
ST isn’t necessary if you’re not buying something useless, unnecessarily expense, or in fashion—It tries to be the why of fashion.
If you studied at the university because you thought it would be useful....
a) Was it useful enough?
b) ST (as I stated above) isn’t required to explain “people buy things that they think are useful but aren’t”.
Law school professors will hate changing how they teach. They didn’t get into their prestigious jobs to develop mnemonics for fully-grown adults. It’s beneath their dignity. The responsibility for retaining information rests with their students. I get it. It does seem silly to suggest that famous credentialed lawyers spend their time treating their adult students like high-schoolers.
I prefer the OP’s theory of dignity, prestige, and seriousness (DPS), over ST. (If you can decide what serious people do, then you rule the world. All hail our serious overlords.)
The only thing missing (if studying at a university isn’t useful), to explain why it persists is:
Why isn’t this communicated?
Do we listen to more successful people (and ignore less successful people to our detriment)? (“Here is the secret to getting rich: Just buy lottery tickets!” says the winner of the lottery.)
People who take a test and do well on it are inclined to think well of the test.
For what Signaling Theory (ST) points at to be right:
There has to be a reason. (Not just because.)
That reason is something like: ‘People want to look good, and people get something for looking good.’
So people do/try to do things that:
make them look good
or that they think make them look good
Or at the next level up, acting like they believe X makes them look good...
ST isn’t necessary if you’re not buying something useless, unnecessarily expense, or in fashion—It tries to be the why of fashion.
If you studied at the university because you thought it would be useful....
a) Was it useful enough?
b) ST (as I stated above) isn’t required to explain “people buy things that they think are useful but aren’t”.
I prefer the OP’s theory of dignity, prestige, and seriousness (DPS), over ST. (If you can decide what serious people do, then you rule the world. All hail our serious overlords.)
The only thing missing (if studying at a university isn’t useful), to explain why it persists is:
Why isn’t this communicated?
Do we listen to more successful people (and ignore less successful people to our detriment)? (“Here is the secret to getting rich: Just buy lottery tickets!” says the winner of the lottery.)
People who take a test and do well on it are inclined to think well of the test.