Slashdot Mirror
Why Do Employers Require College Degrees That Aren't Necessary? (thestreet.com)
Slashdot reader pefisher writes:
A lot of us on Slashdot have noticed that potential employers advertise for things they don't need. To the point that sometimes they even ask for things that don't exist. Like asking for ten years of experience in a technology that has only just been introduced. It's frustrating because it makes you wonder "what's this employers real game?"
Do they just want to say they advertised for the position, or are they really so immensely stupid, so disconnected from their own needs, that they think they are actually asking for something they can have...? Here is a Harvard Study that addresses one particular angle of this. It doesn't answer any questions, but it does prove that you aren't crazy. And it quantifies the craziness.
The study's author calls it "degree inflation," and after studying 26 million job postings concluded that employers are now less willing to actually train new people on the job, possibly to save money. "Many companies have fallen into a lazy way of thinking about this," the study's author tells The Street, saying companies are "[looking for] somebody who is just job-ready to just show up." The irony is that college graduates will ultimately be paid a higher salary -- even though for many jobs, the study found that a college degree yields zero improvement in actual performance.
The Street reports that "In a market where companies increasingly rely on computerized systems to cull out early-round applicants, that has led firms to often consider a bachelor's degree indicative of someone who can socialize, run a meeting and generally work well with others." One company tells them that "we removed the requirement to have a computer science degree, and we removed the requirement to have experience in development computer programming. And when we removed those things we found that the pool of potential really good team members drastically expanded."
Do they just want to say they advertised for the position, or are they really so immensely stupid, so disconnected from their own needs, that they think they are actually asking for something they can have...? Here is a Harvard Study that addresses one particular angle of this. It doesn't answer any questions, but it does prove that you aren't crazy. And it quantifies the craziness.
The study's author calls it "degree inflation," and after studying 26 million job postings concluded that employers are now less willing to actually train new people on the job, possibly to save money. "Many companies have fallen into a lazy way of thinking about this," the study's author tells The Street, saying companies are "[looking for] somebody who is just job-ready to just show up." The irony is that college graduates will ultimately be paid a higher salary -- even though for many jobs, the study found that a college degree yields zero improvement in actual performance.
The Street reports that "In a market where companies increasingly rely on computerized systems to cull out early-round applicants, that has led firms to often consider a bachelor's degree indicative of someone who can socialize, run a meeting and generally work well with others." One company tells them that "we removed the requirement to have a computer science degree, and we removed the requirement to have experience in development computer programming. And when we removed those things we found that the pool of potential really good team members drastically expanded."
One theory I've heard (I don't know if it's true or not) is that employers require degrees to avoid sexual discrimination lawsuits.
For example, let's say a company has 20% of its employees male, the rest female. They are open to a discrimination lawsuit prima facie. But if they only hire people with a X degree, they can say, "only 19% of people with degree X are male, we are doing better than average!"
As more people with degree X arrive on the scene, the requirement becomes harder and harder to avoid.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As soon as you stop looking at only the gorgeous ones, you'll enjoy many amazing sex encounters with the ones you previously ignored.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I didn't RTFA, but I'm pretty sure this has been discussed at least nine million times in the last 20 years. The main reasons:
1. Demonstrated ability to stick with something for a while.
2. The average college grad is usually more literate than the average high school grad. Better chance that you'll get an employee that can do basic math, speak properly to customers, etc.
3. Employers will get many applicants for any given job, so this will at least filter out SOME people. And of those that apply for the job, #1 above applies.
Yes, it's lazy, but as long as you have more applicants than open positions, why not? (From the employer's point of view.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
One reason is to filter out some of the applicants, because you have too many. Might as well filter out the ones that don't have a degree first; they might know less than the other ones, and they definitely have demonstrated less willingness to jump through hoops.
Another potential reason is to disqualify applicants because you want to hire a H1B.
Another reason is that the HR employees want to protect the value of their bullshit degrees.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Although of course, YMMV.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Because it filters out idiots.
Yes, there are plenty of smart people with no degree and plenty of idiots with degrees, but the mix is more in their favor with a degree, though it's getting to be less of an advantage now that most people have one.
Because it costs them time & money to interview people, simple filters that make their job easier are widely used, even if there's some opportunity cost of overlooking people who are good but who don't pass the filters.
They make up for that anyhow by using employee recommendations. If someone is willing to vouch for a person, they can often skip some of the requirements as long as they have some evidence of being good at the job.
.
The HR department loves a checklist, and a checkbox saying "college degree required" is an easy item to screen for.
A 1971 supreme court case named Griggs vs Duke Power found that if an employer engaged in their own employee or applicant skills testing, and that testing was found to result in racial discrimination, then the empoloyer was guilty of racial discrimination even though that was not their intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Griggs is the basis of credentials inflation in the US.
As a result of Griggs, most companies began halting their own applicant testing entirely, and simply began to require more and more education--assuming that this would still weed out the ineffective applicants.
People with degrees start life later, and often times with a lot of debt. They are organized in the most traditional sense, and will probably be buying a home a few years after graduation. This debt load makes mobility hard, and the chances that the person is living paycheck-to-paycheck are a lot higher. However, unlike someone with less earning power living paycheck-to-paycheck, the person with the degree will have a higher chance of having more to lose. You want the employee that needs you, not the one that will just wander off and say fuck-all when they're pissed at you the employer; they don't have anything, much less anything to lose, so why put up with you? The college grad has a credit score, mortgage, car, and family to protect.
Sig: I stole this sig.
There's alot of bullshit that comes out of college, but alot more that goes in. Also, can you finish a 4 year project?
It's a sham how private education has jacked up the price so college is only available to upper class people, or with the burden of huge debt, but also, if you haven't hired for a position, you wouldn't believe the bald-faced bullshit hundreds of people will send you.
It's an example you can do something without giving up and that's it. They teach you almost nothing useful for most of college. Required basic classes and electives make up the majority of your schooling. Anything below masters is just a slightly better High School Diploma.
Wish I had some mod points. I really hate that college degrees in the US are often viewed solely some kind of career prep/vocational training. Higher education does have to be geared towards some specific job; it can be an end in itself, and it has its own intrinsic value.
I spent about a year in total searching for IT jobs years ago, mainly around Los Angeles.
The ones annoyed me the most, were not just asking for sky high knowledge and experience, what they wanted for you to just work temporarily, until a certain project is completed, or you trained their team for something (or everything).
Interviews are expensive, you don't want to waste them interviewing poor candidates.
If you're looking for really high end people most of them have a degree already. So the degree requirement just gets rid of extraneous candidates.
If you're looking for lower to mid-range people requiring a degree filters out some qualified applicants, but there should be plenty left.
That's not to say companies are hitting the right balance, our most talented hire by far had a degree is a field completely unrelated to software dev, (though he came with a boatload of experience). And certainly, if you find an awesome candidate and HR pushes back because they're missing a checkbox then HR needs to be fixed.
I stole this Sig
4) when they can't find anyone suitable with qualifications they don't need, is easier to apply for an H1-B
College graduates carry student loan debt they need to service. That means they're more financially vulnerable and less able to walk away from their job. It's like a free ball and chain manacled to their wage slaves. Sure, it's doesn't stop them from leaving, but it's surely a hindrance.
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
I am retired now after a long and successful career in computer maintenance and repair. I received my initial training in the USAF during the Vietnam conflict after I was drafted as cannon fodder by the US Army. I transition into computer after working on fighter]bombers for four years. The switch was initially difficult, but I prevailed and had a 35 year career working for various computer companies as a Field Engineer. I ran my own company for 12 years after leaving corporate America. I still enjoy keeping up with the latest technology and still dabble into repair.for friends and relatives. A college degree....NO. I feel if an individual has the appitude and desire, he or she can succeed in this field.
If you have two applications with no work experience, then I would go with the one with a degree as a baseline filter. But if both have several years of experience then I don't think it matters as much, and if you reject the non-degree candidate in the prescreening phase you might be missing out on a great programmer with a nontraditional background (and in tech not having a formal degree isn't all that uncommon anyways, compared to most STEM fields)
tech schools are better then college for ready to work skills. To bad they got roped in to the college system and got an bad rap.
"Having a degree" proves nothing in specific, but statistically speaking, it may (vaguely) indicate a few things in general. You'd sure as heck better not depend on those vague indications, though.
What requiring a degree (and various other tickmarks unrelated to actual skill and capacity) does, though, is frees businesses to (a) pretend they can't find viable candidates capable of the work, and (b) consequent to a, allows them fish in pools of skill that are much less expensive without alerting the stockholders.
And of course, all of this facilitates and amplifies various other types of discrimination: age, health, arrest and conviction records, social media participation, political leanings, gender, religious outlook, etc.
The current tech job market is truly a hellhole. I'm really glad I no longer outright depend on it, and I feel intensely sympathetic with those skilled and capable candidates who are trying to crack the corporate wall.
The good news, I expect, will be that none of this will mean bupkis within a few decades, because I highly doubt there will be any jobs at all of this type remaining. Pervasive automation looks to be coming, and if/when it does, it's going to eat the need to be employed outright.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There are many facets to this.
1) As others point out, it is somewhat of a "bullshit detector". You can do projects, you've been exposed to different areas, you can work with people, somebody has judged your skills adequate.
2) It is required if we are to accept applicants on a visa. I'm unsure if this is a federal rule or our HR policy. But, the moment I tell HR that I want a posting open to visa holders, they force me to require a college degree.
3) It is a way for young people to "get in the door" w/out any true experience. We have mandatory employment history lengths for the different levels. Seniors need 9 years, mid level 5, associates need 2. Applicants are allowed to count their education years as long as their degree is in an applicable tech field.
While these are good skills the degree shouldn’t be a baseline for employment. Because too many people are wasting 4 years of their lives in education just so they can get a job. Many have these skills beforehand but knowing they need to work the system they get the degree to get the job.
College isn’t designed to be a job training center. They want to focus on learning and education.
A lot of good people are wasting time in college just for the degree and not for the enlightenment of learning.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
... then you indeed do not need any CS types in IT, because you do not have a productivity above zero anyways. In that situation, I can well understand at least hiring people that make these utterly pointless meetings more pleasant.
Companies run on this paradigm probably hire consultants for any real work anyways, because they cannot do anything themselves anymore. A slight problem may arise when these consultants realize how indispensable they are and refuse to work for cheap. My last negotiation with a major customer that wanted lower rates consisted of me saying "no" and they basically did not have a choice.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This would make a lot of sense in an era of declining educational standards at schools. It used to be that getting good grades at secondary school meant that you had put in a decent amount of work and commitment. However, now that it is no longer politically correct to fail school kids the qualification has become enormously devalued and it is no wonder that employees no longer rely on it. In fact, even universities are now beginning to question whether using high school marks to determine which admit students is reliable.
but as you work into masters and higher you start going up the Irv Tower and way from skills and stuff that are needed in the work place. The higher up the more skills that only really work good for Irv Tower.
doctors have an association to keep there wages high so they can pay for an full 4 years of college + 4 years of an trade school after that and then some. Now office jobs don't pay $100K-150K so you can't drop $200K-$300K on student loans.
I've got a degree, but I got in the UK before tuition fees and in a subject where it's kind of necessary, i.e. engineering. Still it's harder to justify asking for a degree in other subjects, like the arts. For a lot of programming jobs like web development it's also arguable that you don't need a degree to be able to do it. Even writing embedded code like I do isn't something that actually needs a degree - I've met a lot of people who do it well and don't have one, and a lot of people who do it badly who do.
On the other hand if you have more applicants than jobs why not pick the best qualified ones? And of course if employers demand a degree, more people will do one.
Now since I got mine, more people are getting degrees, prices have gone up and they're doing them in subjects where it is less necessary.
I think it's a classic case of inflation. If employers can eliminate candidates on the basis of graduate/non graduate, of course they'll do it. And if they do it, more people decide they need to get a degree. In the UK the percentage of graduates has increased enormously, tuition fees have risen because the government can no longer fund all those graduates to study without them paying and so now doing a degree means taking on a lot of debt. In the US of course it's probably a fair bit worse.
Of course it's hard to get out of this trap of people only needing a degree because employers demand one, and employers demanding them because they know they can find someone with one. Meanwhile most people are doing degrees in subjects which aren't really helping them do their jobs. Because if you're force to do a degree you don't actually need why not do it in a subject you like.
One option would be to allow people to default on their loans. But that would burst a bubble way worse than subprime mortgages
It was $1 trillion in 2014 and has a high delinquency rate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/h...
The total outstanding student loan balance is $1.08 trillion, and a whopping 11.5% of it is 90+ days delinquent or in default. That's the highest delinquency rate among all forms of debt and the only one that's been on the rise consistently since 2003.
It's easy to see why. If you borrow $100K or more to get a degree and end up in a bad job, you're going to end defaulting.
Maybe if the government only offered degree loans in subjects which have some justification economically they could deflate the bubble because it would forces universities to drop the price of degrees in everything else. Of course telling academics their subject is no longer eligible for loans will cause a massive shitstorm and accusations of philistinism from self interested academics.
Another option would be for the government to get out of the student loans business. Bursting such a large bubble of bad debt will have dire economic consequences however it is done though.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
military Technical Training should count for something at the very least be like an devry.
The lack of retraining is, in my opinion, a major cause of the populist uprising in recent years. In the UK, the majority of areas where people voted for brexit were manufacturing centres until our economy shifted into services, the manufacturing declined leaving massive pockets of vocational workers without any skills that are in demand. These people are also the least likely to move away from their area for work for social and economic reasons, and this is in the middle of massive immigration (which provides workers who do go to demand). They blamed the government, and it was the government, just not the one they blamed.
Because of my age, I've had many colleagues and candidates who lacked degrees, especially advanced degrees. Most computing work was relatively new, and people strongly interested in it at the start of my career often did leave college to pursue the technologies that fascinated them. But over time, that technological fascination has become less critical. The interaction with managers, customers, and collaborators have come to matter more in the IT and developer world, and the educational opportunities have flourished. So the same person with the matching interests from 30 years ago can, and should, find educational opportunities in their fields. A _failure_ to do so in today's educational market is usually a sign of other issues.
If you can't invest the time and effort to get a degree, _now_, with the opportunities to link the degree to fields you find interesting or work that you find inspiring, there is little point to my hiring you or bringing you on my team. There have been exceptions: military service, and coping with poverty or familial responsibilities are challenges that test people in ways that can certainly match up to a college degree. But if you weren't busy between 18 and 22 with something involving commitment and learning real skills, your resume has to give me other very, very strong reasons to want you on my teams.
College is really best for doctors and lawyers mainly, who need to have a high level of rote memorization functioning since they need to be able to react quickly in situations where fast decisions have to be made in life and death situations. This is the way things used to be. This is why college programs are designed to filter out most people except those with very high memory retention. And thus, colleges have 50-80% failure rates. For all other jobs, its overkill, its wasting years of peoples lives, it causes enormous social problems. It throws away large numbers of people because they don't meat the unrealistic demands and expectations of college programs. College for most people Is NOT a pathway to success, its a pathway to failure. So, given this, college is more of a problem, than a benefit that actually locks large numbers of people into poverty. We can train the workers we need without college, using self study and apprenticeships. This is why I believe corporations should be banned from asking employers in non medical and non legal fields for a college degree.
With other fields, such as software development, time is not as much of a problem, and neither is rote memorization. You can use documentation to lookup some obscure API that you need to use, and you have a debug cycle to test the code. The code can be tested and reviewed before it is deployed. There is time to think about the correct algorithm to use and the code to be contemplated.
I am in favor of abolishing college degree requirements for most run of the mill jobs, including software development, and keeping it mainly for doctors and lawyers, and abolishing the H1B program (more on this in a bit). College is a waste of time and overkill for most people. Its years of your life down the drain, often studying things you will never use or need, like French Art. Now, learning about French Art is fine, but the fact is, I can do that on my spare time and I don't need to pay something $100,000 for this .
People can effectively learn what they need to know through self study and apprenticeship programs. You can learn algorithms, programming and mathematics basically for free by buying your own books and reading them yourself. I taught myself calculus, 10 computer languages and dozens of algorithms this way. How many of us got into computer programming by tinkering with writing code on our home computers when we were young? I basically learned the entirety of what I know from self study. The fact is even in college, no one can learn for you. Your still responsible for reading and studying yourself. Your doing all of the work. So basically, your not paying anyone for anything. They are not giving you anything. You are doing all of the work. There is virtually no difference from self study, you basically study, read and learn.
Secondly for most jobs memory refresher as for some obscure detail, like some obscure API, is perfectly acceptable, that is, learning as you go. In fact, learning by doing and as you go is fine for many jobs in regards to many obscure details , and the best way to keep people interested and engaged because there is an accomplishment reward feedback happening.
College has led to many social problems, including high levels of student debt, protracted periods of ones life being taken away that is not productive and income earning, delayed home purchasing and family initiation, making it too difficult and expensive to raise children due to high college costs, etc.
Instead, we should use for the majority of jobs apprenticeship and on the job training programs, self study and test certificates (such as CompTIA). One of the problems as well which has so distorted the US labor market is the availability of H1B visa holders from third world colleges, where they spent a fraciton of an American on their college degrees. This distorts the market and makes it harder for the job market to keep the demands of corporations for college degrees more in check, since essentially they can get Indian H1B visa holders who
Have you looked at the kind of people who did go to college and are complete frigging morons?
I've taken a few jobs like that, temporary or "ramp us up" jobs. And they've usually turned into permanent positions. I've hired that way too. It's sort-of temp-to-hire, a way to do a more thorough interview without the risk of having to fire someone.
Because too many people are wasting 4 years of their lives in education just so they can get a job.
The problem is that there is a negative feedback loop. Too many people go to college and get worthless degrees, so the job market is flooded with psychology grads. Therefore there is no downside to employers demanding degrees since these grads are plentiful and willing to accept the same low wages as a HS grad ... which puts pressure on the HS grad to go to college and get a degree in something.
I don't know what the solution is. One reasonable proposal is to require taxpayer subsidized student loans to be combined with an internship or apprenticeship to match up students with employers and ensure they are learning something useful.
More like demonstrated ability to be born into money.
Irv Tower?
Often enough if you apply they will still accept you without the mentioned degree as long as you show competency in said field. Bring a portfolio and show your previous professional works as well as personal works.
Twinstiq, game news
lack of a trades track as well! Germany has a good system.
also get the nfl / nba training grounds out of college and on to a real minor league system like the NHL and MLB.
As someone who has worked in IT for a number of large companies, I can say that sometimes it's less about the company, and more about the HR dept. I've submitted clear job descriptions for posting only to have them rewritten in boilerplate language, adding unnecessary requirements, and in some cases, removing necessary ones. As mentioned many times before, HR departments are really Lawsuit Avoidance departments. Unfortunately, sometimes avoiding lawsuits gets in the way of hiring otherwise qualified individuals.
Here are the counter-arguments (from the employers point of view).
Why it is better to hire people WITHOUT a college degree.
1) You can pay them less. A lot LESS.
2) You get people that are more loyal. They know it's harder for them to get another job.
3) You get people that have experience working long, hard hours rather than staying out late and drinking, then doing a half -assed job to finish off projects at the last minute.
4) You get people that think getting into a ton of debt just to prove how smart they are sounds off to them.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
... is a filter for Wussies.
That's doesn't mean you're a wuss if you didn't go to College. It's only more likely that you *aren't* a wuss if you did go to College and got a degree that actually means something, i.e. STEM.
This is quite simply put, but has solid truth to it. A degree is only a small piece of the mosaic that is your career, but a significant one that can mean quite the difference.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Just no. Part of the solution is for the government to stop paying any part of any degree program that doesn't have high in field employment after graduation. That means kick those programs off public school campuses.
A generation of 'poetry majors' publicly starving in the streets will also help kids focus on getting value for their education dollars, borrowed or not.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
tech schools are better then college for ready to work skills. To bad they got roped in to the college system and got an bad rap.
The nice part about a traditional college is that, regardless of what you may get your degree in, English 101 is required.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Germany USED TO do a relatively good job with their bottom 20%.
But that ship has sailed, they now graduate into apprenticeships not knowing how do basic arithmetic.
Yes my Aunt is a teacher in a German high school. They don't know what to make of it or do about it. It's like the idiot kids have been replaced by American idiots.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I didn't see anyone else mention this, so here's my understanding.
There are three common categories of employees are are exempt from standard overtime rules: supervisors, administrative, and professional.
A college degree (usually expressed as degree or equivalent experience) is evidence that the position has professional requirements, and can qualify for a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption from overtime rules.
A tiny %.
The rest are mostly second generation morons, or their parents would cut off the funds after a year of 0.5 GPAs while taking only remedial courses.
I blame 'Animal House' and I'm generally from the 'Pro Party' camp.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How to break the loop is a good question.
Degrees are being used as a (really lazy) litmus test. If the costs weren't as simple as "It took me 6 weeks to hire people when I opened the job up to everyone vs. 3 without," then there would be a variable that could be weighted differently. It would be great to see people incorporate "for the good of society" into their thoughts, but right now, the bottom thought, even if it doesn't need to be, is "Is it cheaper for me."
I've heard a whole slew of reasons why people can't and won't try to play nice with others. Here are just a couple.
- "If I had to get a degree, they should have to."
- I talked to them about college and we both agreed on how we felt about the greeks and our 3rd period teacher.
- They must not be able to hack it
It is ironic that the same people that make sure they hire a "diverse" group, will look at you and say with a straight face, that they are diverse because each person on their team has different color skin.
--
"I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it with my own two eyes"
Yes!
I do have 10 years bullshitting experience from before products shipped.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Higher education is NOT necessarily career preparation. It teaches theory, not necessarily reality. In my old career as a Systems Engineer, I met so many people with masters degrees that had no idea how to actually turn a Windows server into a domain controller, let alone plan complex systems. I have a degree in Criminal Justice which might as well be basket weaving. I learned through teaching myself and a whole lot of studying how today. A college degree doesn't even accurately predict who will work harder. There are plenty of college grads that don't engage in life long learning. Learning and growing is a personal decision.
I have never been asked for my degree, what university or my majors. All my customers care about is that I deliver quality and solve their problems.
That means kick those programs off public school campuses.
What? Private for-profit colleges have a way worse track record than public colleges. Both the dropout rate and the loan default rate are higher than at public institutions.
A generation of 'poetry majors' publicly starving in the streets will also help kids focus
No it won't. At 17 years old, a HS senior is way to naive and oblivious to make the connection. They need better guidance, from either their parents or their high schools, ... or maybe their loan officers. My daughter wanted to major in psychology, and it took me quite a while to dissuade her. I finally convinced her by showing her a list of salaries by major (psychology is at the absolute bottom) and a list of typical jobs for a graduate (under psychology it listed "Uber driver"). She is currently studying biotech.
Universities are not supposed to be vocational training facilities. That's one of the reasons why it's inappropriate to use a degree as a job requirement. You are part of the problem.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Basically, it's called a "cultural fit" which means they're just not comfortable with people different from themselves. They'll require degrees for everyone right down to the receptionist. And why not? Don't want any of the unwashed getting in, eww. They might have hobbies like hunting or fishing instead of cooking with argula or going to artisan cocktail bars.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I don't know what the solution is. One reasonable proposal is to require taxpayer subsidized student loans to be combined with an internship or apprenticeship to match up students with employers and ensure they are learning something useful.
Here's another proposal. Let's have the students either have to pay for their own educations, like in working through college, or have to apply for a loan through a private bank. If you pay for your own education up front then no one cares if you study transgender dance theory because that's your money. If someone has to go to a bank and they see an application for a loan to major in transgender dance theory then chances are the bank will refuse the loan. If someone shows up with an even slightly higher than average SAT or ACT score, good grades in high school, and wants to go to college to be a registered nurse then that person is quite likely to get a loan.
Government subsidy just artificially raised the prices and reduces choices. I remember this with the switch to digital television. The government said they'd pay UP TO $50 for a device that received digital TV and had a few other requirements. Guess what happened? Every device was priced at exactly $50. I wanted a device that did something the government would not subsidize so I had little for choices. I could choose the crippled government subsidized solution or a very expensive feature filled device for many times more money. There wasn't a $100 middle of the road digital TV converter device, only the $50 crippled devices or $300 whiz bang devices.
Why is it that an engineering degree costs as much as a degree in transgender dance theory? Because the student doesn't pay for it, the government does. If the student had to pay for it then perhaps the student might give more thought in the value of the degree. If a private bank had to put a risk factor on each degree on every student loan they they'd be handing out loans for things like engineering, nursing, law, business, and so forth but not transgender dance theory. They'd also set standards on who got the loan. The government really only cares if a person has been accepted to a college, not if the degree has any value or the school is any good. Mostly they do this just so they know who gets the check and for how much.
A private bank would also put a market based check on the amount of the loan. They might give a $15,000 loan for studying dance. For someone that wants to be a surgeon, and they have demonstrated ability, the bank is quite likely to give a $250,000 loan. Oh, and the dance school loan would probably have a 15% interest rate and the medical school loan a 5% interest rate.
Oh, and the bank might also get in the business of finding people work if it meant getting paid back on the loan. What incentive does the government have in finding people work? I mean they don't want people destitute but really all they want is people that won't cause trouble. The government doesn't much care if they get you a job, put you in prison, or get you on welfare. It's not their money so some government bureaucrat will "find you a job" just so they can be rid of you and move on. They won't care if you like the job, if it matches your degree, or even if the job pays better than minimum wage. It's not their money.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"Unless you work in a licensed professio, job requirements often represent an "ideal candidate wish list" by the employer. Smart job seekers know that and aren't afraid to apply to jobs where the fit isn't clear or the requirement match isn't all there."
Pretty much this. I just dealt with a recruiting company for the first time on the hiring side, and it really is interesting and eye-opening.
A lot of the stuff is just buckets. And the required experience in years next to it is really. For example we wanted people with 5+ years experience in front end web application developement (any kind), and we wanted people with typescript and Angular 2 experience. Obviously we don't want people with 5 years Angular 2 experience, but that's what it looks like we're asking for.
And the college degree stuff... yeah. That can serve lots of purposes -- most degrees reflect a fair bit of writing and organization and motivation etc so its good to see. And if you've got too many applicants its a good way to filter it a bit. (Although if you are hiring a junior position and have too many applicants filtering it to just people who are over qualified and will either refuse the offered salary, or accept it but then jump ship the minute they find something better is counter productive.
The person knows they have to get up, arrive on time and do what they are told. They have shown they can do this for years.
The applicant can study, retain what they have studied and recall new and complex information over time to some set standard.
Some long term, risky and unexpected health problems with the person could have been expected to show within the many years of the education system and its work load.
A persons politics and personality should have developed to a stage that can be tracked. Is the person going to want to bring their political issues and outside campaigning to work?
That background check should show who they befriended, what they studied and what disruptive political theories they could be expected to spread at work.
The professional ethics, standing and quality of a person. Did the person have difficulties not cheating? Always need and demand "extra" considerations?
Was the person advanced on academic merit or given non academic considerations?
Did they complain a lot? Disruptive? Did they report their academics for "politics" a lot? Show signs of long term poverty, having a need to push politics, of a faith, a cult that might see decades of company secrets been sold, liberated or given to another nation, gov, mil, faith group?
What does their social media use show about them? No use of any social media at all? Faith? Politics? Long term contact with friend of friends who are criminals, very political active? Interests that could be an issue in the private sector?
A persons personality, faith, allegiance, secrets might have formed and be discoverable before they enter the work force and walk out with secrets.
A few years of considering how a person acted in a university setting can be an insight into years of work place suitability.
Why risk a difficult person of unknown character, cost and emotions at work when a university setting could have provided some forewarning of a very bad attitude.
Put some time in understanding every aspect of your workers and your company will thrive in any economic conditions.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
College degrees have been the new high school for quite some time. I would say 20 years now. It's really sad.
(and in tech not having a formal degree isn't all that uncommon anyways, compared to most [science, tech, engineering, and math] fields)
HUH? The T in STEM stands for 'tech(nology)'. Parsefail
It makes more sense if you read the first "tech" as information technology as opposed to other technology.
Often they list a degree and a bunch of irrelevant stuff just so that they can pay you less because "you are underqualified".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
they just want to hire smart people?
smart != educated
That being said, the two often correlate.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1. Demonstrated ability to stick with something for a while.
So require someone to waste 4 years of their life while not earning money and accruing debt just to prove they can stick with something. Nice.
I'd bet that a lot of people would be willing to accept a much lower starting salary if they didn't have to finance a student loan.
2. The average college grad is usually more literate than the average high school grad. Better chance that you'll get an employee that can do basic math, speak properly to customers, etc.
That's a failure in the high school system if true. But the quote in the summary of the article says "even though for many jobs, the study found that a college degree yields zero improvement in actual performance"
3. Employers will get many applicants for any given job, so this will at least filter out SOME people. And of those that apply for the job, #1 above applies.
Yes, it's lazy, but as long as you have more applicants than open positions, why not? (From the employer's point of view.)
Why not? Because it's a broken filter. The degree doesn't tell you that they're going to be good at their job, only that they're good at memorizing and passing tests. That and you're filtering out good candidates that don't have a degree.
It's way easier to find the right person when you haven't arbitrarily tossed a good chunk of the candidates away.
That means kick those programs off public school campuses.
What? Private for-profit colleges have a way worse track record than public colleges.
Then split the difference with private non-profit colleges, like Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology or University of Notre Dame.
> Ãoeactually bother to go to a good oneÃ
>
> Take that silver spoon out of you ass and put it back in your mouth.
That's only the case if you're a liberal whining about "institutional bias". For the rest of us, quality is not a function of some over hyped over priced brand.
You can go to a good school and not be a Bush or Kennedy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Translation, there is no STEM shortage. We have so many we can afford to round file people without reading past the top of page 1.
Once I was looking through job postings for a new job fresh out of college. A lot of the jobs I was looking at had completely bullshit requirements. An example was a Broadcom intern position that required a PHD and 6 years of industry experience, or a Masters and 12 years of industry experience.
Another instance was a job posting for a programming language that had only existed for less than 2 years, but the job posting required 10 years experience.
It was pointed out to me by a friend who has been in the industry for decades that these weren't real jobs. These were H1B visa jobs, and that part of the process of getting a H1B visa is "showing" that there is "no one qualified for your job position" and therefor you have to go out of the United States for prospective employees. The catch, is that these H1B visa applicants don't have to meet the same job requirements.
Now I don't know if that is true or not. But it is the only thing that logically makes sense for a company to advertise flat-out impossible, or nigh unrealistic job requirements. And all of the companies that I saw posted these unreasonable job postings were companies that hired H1B visa employees...
We tried removing the requirement for a degree - it opened up some extra good candidates, but it completely exploded the number of terrible applicants by about two orders of magnitude. Yes, flooded with over 100x crappy resumes, and we don't have a giant HR department to handle it (plus they'd bitch about having to stop chatting and playing their mobile phone games that much).
And in the end we ended up hiring a guy with a degree, though there was a strong contender from the degree-less contingent. But it wasn't worth the extra scutwork.
So what we've done for the moment is put the requirement back in the job listing - if we get a great resume but the guy doesn't have a degree, I don't really care for /hiring/, but I want the extra layer of filtering on submissions.
I met so many people with masters degrees that had no idea how to actually turn a Windows server into a domain controller
Benefit of doubt: Were they Solaris, *BSD, or GNU/Linux admins who had never been in front of a licensed copy of Windows Server before?
Why would I have anything to do with idiots in the nation my parents come from?
BTW background: America does great at educating our best students. We _fail_ on the bottom quintile (20% American idiots), where Germany has traditionally done well. Not anymore, German idiots are now just as dumb as American idiots.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4) You get people that think getting into a ton of debt just to prove how smart they are sounds off to them.
You sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder. Going into massive debt so you can spent the next 40-50 years employed rather than unemployed is almost certainly the better choice. Also:
1) You can pay them less. A lot LESS.
Yep, going into debt to massively increase lifetime earnings is not a terrible plan.
3) You get people that have experience working long, hard hours rather than staying out late and drinking, then doing a half -assed job to finish off projects at the last minute.
Yeah all college students suck! Boo!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem with people pursuing those kinds of degrees right now is that they can wind up being starving artists
Why is that a bad thing? Throughout history starving artists have produced far better art than well-fed artists.
If in the Griggs vs Duke Power 1971 case, that Duke Power is prohibited from requiring high school diploma which was disproportionally disadvantageous for blacks, then how can businesses now defend their practice of requiring college degrees which is even more arbitrary and harder to justify for business purpose? It's widely known that college degree is a white privilege much more than high school diploma. I think businesses are just in an ignorant bliss ripe for a lawsuit to slap them back into sense.
I once had a signature.
"first year apprentice, needs 5 years experiance"
An enterprise car rental was looking for managers in training. And required a degree (didnt matter in what) to be looked at for the job. Didnt matter if you have 10 years experiance in retail and management. Had to have a degree to even be looked at.
Private colleges use private money. I don't care what they teach, so long as they aren't using any of my money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In my experience, your #3 is it. It is a filter. Most places want either a degree or "x" amount of experience.
As a requirement, I've only seen it as a must have in state/Federal/municipal jobs.
Do employers care if someone it more literate? Realistically, in the environments I worked, they didn't care at all, provided the employee was able to get their deliverables in during a sprint.
The ironic thing, the uni I went to has classes on critical thinking. Part of the class was debunking stuff from mainstream media, as well as Infowars and the Daily Kos. Either by wording, or stuff completely fictitious.
Education doesn't just tell you to follow in lock-step. You learn stuff like history, so you know when to follow, versus when to give the finger.
An employer that is trying to keep their H1B employees has to post the position so an "American can have an opportunity" at the job. They use crazy job requirements so they can plausibly meet the regulatory requirements of using H1B labor and then document the job posting, keep a bunch of resumes/CVs noting on each they don't fit some requirement that is actually meaningless.
Tons of positions on job sites are H1B spam. The more implausible the requirements, the more likely it's an H1B compliance posting.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Your view is really the same view as the Enlightenment. It's only been around hundreds of years and most of Western civilization was founded on it, but that doesn't stop conservatives from rejecting the Enlightenment and wishing for the golden age of artisans, serfs, nobles, etc.: (might be behind a pay wall)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
And this is how science dies in America.
I'll add one to that which is a major factor for us: upward career mobility. It doesn't do us much good to have someone who will only be able to do the same job they were hired on for in 10 or 15 years: their pay will generally increase, but they won't be doing much to "earn" it.
That said, a few hires over the years clearly disprove this as a major factor on both sides. It just becomes so much harder to filter out people for a blind ad, and it wastes a lot of time interviewing every applicant.
Is your daughter hot?
Yes, very much so. She is half Asian and half white, with all the best features of each. I say this objectively, because I can see that plenty of guys think she is hot. I like walking about 20 paces behind her at the mall so I can watch them rubberneck as she passes by. I especially like it when they crash into a kiosk or trip over a bench.
I'd also like to point out that several, if not all, of the H1b visa shops simply lie about their candidates. I'm sure Tata will be happy to sell you somebody with 10 years experience in .NET 5—a product which does not exist. Or who has a "master's degree" in "application development" that has "heard of, I think" multithreading and has no idea what the "event" keyword means. Or come up with three candidates one after the other, all of whom were the project leader for the same project at the same company at the same time. (All of these are actual examples, although at the time it was .NET 4.3 that didn't yet exist.) So yeah, when the actual requirements are "$40k gross and a willingness to lie," all sorts of things become "requirements."
I have a degree and I have worked in IT for many years, both as a developer and someone that hires developers. As near as I can tell, a degree doesn't make one bit of difference. I have worked with smart people that had degrees and smart people that didn't. I have worked with people with advanced degrees that were as dumb as the day is long.
I think it is a mistake to assume that people that did not attend college or finish college are less intelligent than people who did. One of the big problems is identifying talent. The gatekeepers - HR - are largely unskilled in my experience and often unable to identify talent. Simply excluding people without degrees dumbs it down. It makes their job easier. Relying on software that scans resumes for key words just compounds the problem. This leads to people gaming the system and tailoring resumes to trick the software into thinking they are the better candidate. People that can't or won't play the game are left on the sidelines.
Higher education, particularly in some of the more prestigious schools, is little more than a giant country club. Some people are able to milk these sorts of relationships for their entire career. As the old saying goes, it's not what you know it's who you know. This holds true mainly in executive positions and less so in individual contributor positions. But there is a discrimination of sorts and a stigma attached to those without degrees.
Jesus christ, you didn't even get half the letters correct in "Ivory". You don't know what you're talking about.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
* 4.5
Many employers would like to do background checks or do IQ tests, but most methods of evaluating the suitability of potential employers has been ruled illegal by the government. The ability to obtain a bachelor's degree, while mostly irrelevant to most jobs, does indicate that the graduate has the ability to show up and stick to a task. A college degree is a flawed tool, but in many cases, it's the only tool available.
Because too many people are wasting 4 years of their lives in education just so they can get a job.
If what you are doing is a waste, then you're doing it wrong. Sure I could probably do my current job without my university degree, but that doesn't mean I didn't gain a shitload of benefits as a result of doing one.
sootman averred:
I didn't RTFA, but I'm pretty sure this has been discussed at least nine million times in the last 20 years. The main reasons: 1. Demonstrated ability to stick with something for a while. 2. The average college grad is usually more literate than the average high school grad. Better chance that you'll get an employee that can do basic math, speak properly to customers, etc. 3. Employers will get many applicants for any given job, so this will at least filter out SOME people. And of those that apply for the job, #1 above applies. Yes, it's lazy, but as long as you have more applicants than open positions, why not? (From the employer's point of view.)
Er ... no.
What you have to understand is that job listings are the responsibility of Human Resources personnel. They will solicit input on minimum qualifications from the folks whose department has the vacancy, but, from there on, it's entirely the HR department's baby. The problem is that, particularly for STEM-related and other hghly specialized positions, HR's own people are themselves extremely unlikely to know ANYTHING about the actual job requirements. So, when the team manager of the department with the vacancy responds to their query with, "We need a programmer (for instance) with experience in C# and Oracle middleware," HR translates that as "A four-year degree in computer science, plus 10 years experience in C# and 10 years experience in Oracle middleware."
Because, obviously a programming position requires a degree in computer science - or, at least, it does if you're an HR professional.
The late, great Robert A. Heinlein described it as too many cooks who "like to piss in the soup to make it taste better." He wasn't wrong.
(I'm too lazy to HTML-format your list. Guess it's my lack of 10 years' experience in HTML. Oh wait ... I actually HAVE more than that. Please don't tell HR ... )
Check out my novel.
Interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I met so many people with masters degrees that had no idea how to actually turn a Windows server into a domain controller
Benefit of doubt: Were they Solaris, *BSD, or GNU/Linux admins who had never been in front of a licensed copy of Windows Server before?
You judge people because they don't know how to add a role to a Windows server? That seems like an incredibly strange data point to judge someone.
If what you are doing is a waste, then you're doing it wrong.
So true. If someone doesn't learn anything on college, whose fault is that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What these HR people are really doing is advertising for a position they already have someone slotted for, but to satisfy company rules and EEOC laws, they load the necessary qualifications list with things that can't possibly exist. They can then say they satisfied the rules and laws and have to use the insider as most qualified on the list of applicants.
This is why I encourage people to lie on their resume and to use diploma mills. Not everyone has the time or the money to get a degree.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Granted we need some of the ideas above implemented too for it to work, but the idea that you're going to go into permanent debt and be ruined for life, all because you tried to better yourself and get a decent job, is re-pungent and shouldn't be tolerated in a country that fancies itself the "#1 country in the world."
What should be repugnant in the "#1 country in the world" is having a population so poor and dependent on the government that they cannot even afford to pay to educate themselves and their children. A free people should mean being free from being forced, by government fiat or desperation, to go to the government for education. I think this government education is rotting the brains of our nation. The government doesn't much care if people are educated in their schools.
I was in a college history class and part of it covered World War 2. The professor one week in lecture talked about how the Nazi government was teaching children about how the mentally challenged were a drain on society. An example was given on a math problem given to children on how many able bodied workers it would take to support those unable to work. The next week we had a lecture about the post war period and the UK had lots of children that didn't have fathers to care for them. The government set up public schools to educate these children. The professor seemed to this that this was great, children getting free school was good.
I asked the professor what I thought was a pretty basic question. I asked that if the Nazis were using public schools to indoctrinate children then what kept the UK government from doing the same? He thought about the question for a second, waved his hand at me like he didn't have time for that now, and moved on with the prepared lecture. Think about that. This was a professor that was teaching this same lesson for years and I had to be the first one of likely thousands of his students to ask that question. In the space of a week I got two conflicting messages, public school "bad" and public school "good", and nothing to tell me when either one is true.
Here's the lesson I took from that, public school is "bad". If this professor lacked the ability to tell me why UK public school was good then public school must always be bad. I wonder if this professor was taught in public schools.
There's a few other questions that were asked of this professor that he could not answer, which I thought were pretty basic. Students asked for translations on some French and German seen in images he presented in class. It seems odd that this professor, someone I assume had to take a foreign language like I did in college, could not be bothered to find translations for a few words on images he brought to class. I'd think someone that taught the history of France and Germany, and claimed to have lived in Germany as a child, would perhaps know some of the language from where he lived and the neighboring country. I had to go search the internet after class to find out that the name of a French store "Le Bon Marche" translated, basically, to "Best Buy".
I didn't care too much though. I wasn't paying for this class, the government was. Which just another example of how government funded education fails. I saw the problem and I was not bothered by it enough to complain at the time. That's because I was not paying for it.
Stop expecting that the "market will fix everything".
I don't expect the market will fix everything. I also don't expect the government to fix everything either.
The government is good at simple solutions to obvious problems. If the problem is getting goods and people from one end of the nation/state/county to the other then the government knows how to solve that. This means roads, bridges, rails, seaports, and airports. They'll blaze that trail but the government is bad at the more complex problems like operating an airline, a passenger rail system, or ships, that's best left for th
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Perhaps I can toss one more possibility into the pile:
Companies prefer college grads because the majority of them are nearly drowning in debt and will do anything to keep their job ? It's a carrot on a stick thing. Pay the poor desperate college grad just enough to keep them here, but not quite enough to ever get ahead. Thus, ensuring a nice obedient employee to abuse for decades.
Though it is true about the " many companies not wanting to train their employees " these days. My own company makes ~$3B a quarter, give or take, and training of any kind has been non-existent for better than a decade now.
It's more of a: " Here's the new equipment you're going to maintain. Make it work. " setup.
That should make you feel all fuzzy inside :D
No it won't. At 17 years old, a HS senior is way to naive and oblivious to make the connection. They need better guidance, from either their parents or their high schools, ... or maybe their loan officers.
Funny ... at 17, I thought my friends were a bunch of morons for planning to go to college without any clue of what they wanted to do. I never did figure out what I actually needed a degree in, so I never went. I didn't even need to see starving artists in the streets; it just seemed like common sense that, if you don't have a realistic career in mind, it's best not to waste 4 years of your life and pay tens of thousands of dollars for it.
Hiring used to be for the length of a career. You stuck with a company for a long time. So rather than hire an idiot that's only good for an entry level job, they hired someone who was able to grow into other positions over time. That habit has held over. Maybe it's better to hire the idiots now for entry level jobs, then refuse them promotions until they prove they're capable (which will be difficult if their writing level is 6th grade, they never took any math classes, and they only thing they're self taught in is PC helpdesk and video games.
In my experience, people are not very good at learning on their own. They're very apt to skip the boring topics, they'll just skim the surface, and they'll have an over-inflated idea of their own worth on the job.
Granted, no everyone can and should go to college. But if someone does have the opportunity to go to college affordably and they skip it, that's is some serious self harm being inflicted.
Do they just want to say they advertised for the position, or are they really so immensely stupid, so disconnected from their own needs, that they think they are actually asking for something they can have...?
In most cases, I think it is just a game of Chinese Whispers between the different departments that need to provide bureaucratic approval for a job ad in a large company. The manager who wants to hire someone wants 10 years industry experience and experience with new technology X. Somewhere along the line, that becomes 10 years experience with new technology X, and that is what goes into the ad. Usually the manager in charge is just as frustrated with this process as the potential applicants, as there is always the fear that the best applicants are not applying because they are too honest about their experience to get through the HR filter based on the screwup in the ad. Managers should always insist on final approval of the ad content to avoid this, and not just throw it over the fence and hope to hear back with a shortlist of candidates.
Why is that a bad thing? Throughout history starving artists have produced far better art than well-fed artists.
Is that actually true? Or is it just that, given the highly subjective nature of art, people tend to assign more emotional value to "art" that has a sob-story behind it?
Even experience gets trumped by degrees in (info)tech and many other fields. Maybe less so in hardware and hard science, but not otherwise. Employers know that somebody with real experience applying for a job was: 1) laid off so downcheck regardless of reason; 2) wasn't paid enough so they're looking for a raise - BAD; or 3) has been through the mill and expects a living wage now (variant on 2, but probably with a family in the background so unlikely to accept as much abuse as somebody younger). Besides, in infotech outside of hardware and pure research, it's a business "for the young" so it's expected that by the time you're 30 (40 at the latest) you've moved into management or been laid off permanently ("retired" as a verb). Except possibly for the sex industry and acting (are they perhaps variants on the same thing?), there are few places with as much age discrimination as infotech. So they want the degree and only the degree: somebody with one and no experience probably has a ton of student debt and will accept any amount of abuse to get enough money to pay it off before they die, while somebody with experience probably already has some or all of their debt paid down and isn't as subservient.
The proposal was for subsidized loans. Not a completely free lunch but the government is still paying something.
These interest free loans, guaranteed by the government, has still had effects. It's created an unnatural inflation on the price of an education. We're seeing more bullshit degrees. We're seeing more people go to college that quite likely should not be there. Not everyone needs to go to college. If these loans were not insured by the government then the schools might not be accepting so many marginal students.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
ntr
Good god this. Years back I was the "IT Manager" for a very small organization. I was alone but shortly added one person. The process of hiring someone for a position a bit higher than help desk was painful. Bad candidate after bad candidate walked through my door.
I finally hired a woman who appeared to be a self taught, motivated individual who did not have a degree. She was fantastic. Personable, hard working, picked up on things quickly. She was a god send. Until I told her to send out an Email to the organization informing them she would be rebooting a server that night. It was like "I am booting server SW twonight becuz of mainence. Shuld be o.k. tomorow. LoL!"
From then on, any communications going out to the company were to come through me, but I would have her write them and send them to me for editing. Finally, I stopped having her attempt writing up a draft and wrote them myself. I tried to help her with her English skills, but she just never got anywhere near acceptable for a professional communication. Note that English was her native and only language.
That said, I'd hire her again. When she asks me career advice, I tell her to really concentrate on her language skills. I think being unable to communicate clearly and effectively through a variety of means gives you a ceiling in IT and most other positions.
doing exactly what they want and covering themselves legally!
Private colleges use private money.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I don't care what they teach, so long as they aren't using any of my money.
They are using your money.
When a student from ITT or DeVry drops out and and defaults on his government guaranteed student loan, who do you think pays the lender?
You forgot one: They want to hire an h-1b and they're putting artificial requirement in place to make that happen.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
chapter 11 and 7 for private student loans and government loans have rules that the schools have to deal with.
You don't know the arguments, do you? You call yourself educated? The Enlightenment legacy can be seen all around us: individualism, international commerce and trade, moral cosmopolitanism, freedom of the press and a culture of publicity, technological modernity, the valorization of expertise, and on and on. All of these are bogeymen to the Left and they wish to free our society from their oppression.
The concept of "race" was birthed by the Enlightenment. Before that, there wasn't any racism, just Christians and heathens. But the white man came up with the idea there is "objective truth" and used it to oppress peoples of color. The Enlightenment's ontology, rooted in the new science of the 17th century, created a vision of human beings in nature which provided weapons to a new race-based ideology which would have been impossible without the Enlightenment.
The entire idea behind today's Left-wing thought is that there is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid. For example, there is no valid genetic basis for human intelligence, there are merely different kinds of intelligence. Native Americans do poorly at intelligence tests designed for whites, but excel at tests designed to measure storytelling intelligence.
White supremacy as enabled by the Enlightenment is most commonly conceptualized as a way for lower-class whites to feel socially superior to people from other ethnic backgrounds. More important, though, white supremacy is a tried-and-tested means for upper class whites to grow their wealth and power. This thought is all over the place on the Left and I am astonished that you are not familiar with it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I usually give US employers flak for being abusive and unfair in how they exploit employees, but when it comes to job training I would like to make an argument in their defense. Compared to older times, we have a job market with more job mobility and less loyalty to employers. What would at some time be a good investment in extended training of someone you expect to stay with the company for a long time, may now end up as waste from the company's point of view.
Regarding what competence and experience you ask for when hiring - well, it is not that complex. You list the qualifications that are desired for the job, you see what applications you get, and then you see if you can live with the qualifications of the best ones. You know you probably won't get anyone who ticks off all the boxes, and potential applicants know this as well - so people who are close to meeting criteria, know it's ok for them to apply.
Requiring an education with good performance is not so much about inflation, as it is about proving up-front that you are able to learn and perform. Plus having an education that is sufficiently related to what you will be doing, that you should be able to pick up what you need for the job.
"Like asking for ten years of experience in a technology that has only just been introduced."
May be they want to catch on their lie those claiming to have the "required" experience?
What time line are you asking:
1990s: YOUR OWN!
2010s: The teacher's! The institution's! The government's! Mommy, mommy, mommy they hurt my feelings by giving me a B+! It's not fair! I was totally worth an A!
I finally figured out what you are. You are actually a Russian pretending to be support white supremacy, and you only know enough English to throw around a few keywords like Federal government state university loan but the sentences are completely made up. You don't even insult people properly in English, and you are such a disgrace.
You either start being nice to people on the Internet or you may stay quietly in your frozen shit-hole eating potatoes.
I once had a signature.
There's a massive oversupply of labour and not enough jobs.
So employers use degrees (or lack thereof) as a quick way to cull the applicant list for the few jobs they do advertise.
They figure a college grad is so far in the hole, all it takes is a little paycheck to pwn you.
No, but the GP apparently does. See those little grey bars at the left?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For the same reason dogs lick their balls.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If so, this disparity in education requirements between technology on the one hand and science, engineering, and mathematics on the other hand casts doubt on the validity of STEM as a category of employment.
>The entire idea behind today's Left-wing thought is that there is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid. It seems to be the some among the right are the most vigorous at rejecting objective truth, from Fox News âoethere are no facts only narrativeâ to the Trump administrationâ(TM)s (and the Republican Party in general) rejection of science and objective analysis. Is âoethe leftâ guilty of the same thing? Iâ(TM)m pretty left in my politics, and what mostly horrifies today is the wholesale rejection of facts in policy making. In the end Iâ(TM)m coming to the conclusion that âoethe leftâ and âoethe rightâ are just convenient caricatures to make it easier for us to do a wholesale rejection of the opinions of people we disagree with.
I spent the first 10 years of my career leveraging my military training working as a non-degreed engineer for 2 or the largest technical firms in the world. I eventually found myself leading 4 degreed engineers in an R&D lab, all made more money than me and and were able to move in job market which was harder for me since I didn't have the paper. So I went to college and got a BSBA with minor in MIS and I did learn a lot but more than that I refined what I knew and layering the business skills on my technical skills made me more valuable. The article is basically correct though, and there's another aspect. There are very few potential H1 employees that do not possess degrees and that creates market pressure. I suspect the perception of hiring management, is that a degreed "white collar" employee is better than a non-degreed "new collar" employee. My employer is a case in point, we very much promote "new collar" workers in our marketing and technical trainings, but on the other hand I haven't seen one employment opportunity that doesn't require a degree.
If you committed to a Major, achieved some post-graduate specialist status, you are someone with major debt and a one-track mind. Perfect "Company Man" material.
Quite right, corrupt government is a major factor.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think one problem is the economic incentive of paying for college. Every single degree from the same college costs the same amount of money even tho the college probably pays math and engineering profs more than they pay lit and history profs.
If you only have to pay $20 grand for an English degree and $100 grand for a computer science degree, then some aspiring students might make a slighty smarter choice. But if you're going to spend $100 grand anyway, then you might decide to go for the degree that takes as little time as possible away from all the other non-curricular acitvities that are supposed to broaden your outloook (most of which you could do for free without paying tuition while working at Whole Foods or McDonalds).
That would make sense, except for the fact that my company has such a rule. However, we have someone who was hired as a temp in Accounting. She cleaned up many problems the accounting department had had, but, despite having an open permanent position in accounting, they will not hire her for that position because she does not have a college degree. So, the temp has proven both the ability to stick with it and to do the job better than the college graduates they had doing the job previously, but they will not make her permanent because she does not have a degree.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
1) I have a college degree. Many people go into massive debt and do NOT increase their earning potential.
2) Most people do not really need their degree. More than half end up regretting the money spent.
3) College doesn't suck, but it doesn't educate most people. It acts as certification not education.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or get out of the loan business entirely. If we stopped guaranteeing loans for every student, tuition wouldn't be rising faster than inflation, and kids wouldn't be going to college for no reason than to check a box on an application.
It's been my experience that many HR departments are largely inept when it comes to technical hiring.
Why don't you bet on yourself ? In many fields, requiring degrees has become the norm. If you start a business in one of those fields and follow your recommendations of hiring non-degree holders, you could compete the shit out of all your competitors.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
HR departments like it when they can 'apply the formula' in hiring. Even back in the 90s it was all about checking all of the boxes. I worked on a programming contract that, while I didn't have a college degree (and was the only one with practical experience) all of the others have four year degrees.. in things like International Studies, Business Admin, and two that crashed out of going to medical school. Not a programmer in the lot but the corporation that they worked for (I was a subcontractor) would put them through a programming 'boot camp' that would make them 'software engineers'.
We needed additional hands to work on the interface portion of the app (Java was 1.2 at this point and still somewhat primitive when it came to GUI) so the manager had HR give us something to put in the paper (services like Monster didn't exist yet) and he gave it to me to look over. He didn't understand why I was doubled up laughing over the requirement for five years Java experience - for a language that was only two years old.
Many if not most of the responses here posit that the degree requirement, even if not directly related to the job, is a cheap, if crude, way to filter out a deluge of job applicants.
If there is such a shortage of STEM workers that it is necessary to import so many that Silicon Valley has become majority Asian in less than a generation, it is rather difficult to justify such crude measures.
In reality, what is going on is that capturing positive network externalities has increasingly been the VC business model -- not invention. This creates monopoly profits that insulates management from bad hiring decisions. Rather than letting those bad decisions go to waste, Asian cultures, which can smell economic rent 10,000 miles away, ramped up their diploma mills (a diploma being the equivalent of a taxi cab medallion in terms of rent seeking), targeted the network effect monopolies, targeted the hiring authority of those companies, imported their "degreed" coethnics in huge numbers under the H-1b program, and focused more and more of the VC world on the rent-seeking network effect business model. The "guest workers" are then on a green card track which, when obtained, raises their value in the dowry market by tens of thousands of dollars. Everyone wins, except Western civilization and the folks that built it.
Seastead this.
The days of a Bachelor's degree meaning anything significant are vanishing in today's employment market. A more penetrating question is why do so many of today's employers require advanced degrees and all too often expect candidates to accept a ridiculous sub-standard idiot wage in return?
In Belgium when they ask for it it is implied "or equivalent with work expoerience' except in professions where it is needed by law, like a lawyer or doctor or when it is for a governement job, but then they will ask what is actually relevant.
Yes, there will be some idiots who will ask for it when not officially needed and they will have huge problems finding the right people for the price they are willing to pay. And by that I mean that they will finally pay more and still not get the quality they need.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When it's typically costing you more than $10k/yr, the 'intrinsic value' of a degree has very real cost/benefit concerns for most people. I'd love to pursue an advanced degree in something genuinely interesting, but it is prohibitively expensive for me to do so. So I will finish the MBA slog, and get paid more in my next job, and use my free time to pursue something more rewarding outside of academia.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
I think it depends on your choices and priorities. How much per year does the average person spend on smartphones, internet, electricity, gasoline, auto insurance, car payments, etc. etc.? The only things we truly need in life is food, shelter and medical attention if we are sick...Where you choose to live or go to school plays a big part in the cost.
Personally, I chose to join the military, I'm essentially retired at 39, and the government pays me a little over $2000/month to go to school full-time (GI Bill) and another $5900/yr (Pell Grant). I have to pay for books and tuition, but if you shop around you can determine your own balance of cost and quality. Life choices.
School doesn't have to cost more than $10k a year. Pell Grant alone is enough to not only pay for an associates degree at a local community college, it will most like net you some actual profit. I understand that an Masters or PhD is a different beast altogether, but my point is that you don't necessarily need a ton of money to go to college (scholarships and other grants are plentiful as well).
And my original point was that employers requiring a college degree that doesn't relate to the job activity itself, does not necessarily make it an unreasonable standard for employment. Anyone can be trained in a specific job or skill (albeit with varying degrees of effort). Things like a positive attitude and a genuine desire to seek self-improvement can't really be instilled in people. It has to come from within, and I believe pursuit of higher education is a very strong indicator of those traits. I think that requiring a college degree for a job is no more unreasonable than requiring that a person has a clean criminal/credit record or quality references from past employers etc.
I find it disheartening that so many people see education as a means to an end (to make more money), rather than an end in itself. I think we all spend plenty of money of much more frivolous things than education. Everything in life has cost/benefit concerns.
You know, there's more than one professor in the country. You got one that sucks. It happens.
Also, I'm free and unarmed. It's called civilization, and it works a lot better than individual weapons. Try it sometime.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes