Education vs The Job

I've got what I tend to consider a "partial" degree - dropped out about 3 years in because I failed the math classes a bunch of times. Keep in mind this was in Germany back in the time when they didn't have a Bachelor/Master split track and you essentially got stuck at university for 7-8 years to get a "diploma" that was more along the lines of a master's degree.

I also happen to have over 25 years experience in my field and get to hire people. My experience is that a degree can be an indicator of the person's capabilities, but it's not a sufficient one. For example, I often interview junior developers with a stellar degree in CS and their can't explain their thoughts on finding their way out of a paper bag, and I interview others who either have a degree in a completely different field or are college dropouts like myself, but exhibit a clarity of thinking and can communicate well.

As 02Pilot says up there, the ones that want to learn and are hungry to learn will do much better, no matter what their degrees are. The ones that don't - and I have run into a bunch of them straight out of college who declared in an interview(!) that their time of "learning stuff" is over - will bemoan the size of their student debt and go on to have a mediocre career at a mediocre company at best.

Now my employer normally advertises for people with a degree, but at least I will take candidates into account who don't have one.

OTOH, I've never made it to a single phone interview with some companies that ask someone with tons of demonstrable experience about their GPA, and I've been offered jobs at companies where everybody else had at least one, if not two PhDs and all I had to bring to the table was experience in that particular field.

HiTempguy wrote:

TRoglodyte wrote: The degree opens doors in many fields, similar experience would have to be in a similar field probably with more time involved.

I dont think anyone is arguing that. I may go back and finish a 4 year degree program if I get laid off. My associates (equivalent In canuckistan) just isn't cutting it. I'd like to be in management eventually. I'd like to be in a different industry. And most of all, I'm getting tired of people looking down on me and my apprent lack of "critical thinking" because I didn't listen to a prof drone on for 3 hours about Freud. Soeaking about degrees vs other paths, I've never faulted anyone for doing a trade, especially if you are ticketed in anything you are getting paid $40+/h anywhere in this province. However, we have this thing called winter 6 months a year. Pretty big difference being a tradesman down in California vs one in Alberta. I always ask someone when they say they want to do a trade if they want to be working outside in -30*c weather when they are 55? Because that is reality for most tradesmen.

Do you have a Red Seal certification?

02Pilot wrote: I get students with this attitude every semester (for the record, I do not teach philosophy, but other areas of the humanities). Outcomes are mixed. Some eventually recognize that they do not, in fact, know everything they need to know already, and begin to work toward filling knowledge gaps they didn't know existed. This is always an uphill battle, because they've spent years feeling they'd already learned all they needed to. Non-traditional teaching methods (I'm a big advocate of game-based learning, but there are others as well of course) often help to demonstrate the issues at hand to students that don't respond well to traditional classroom environments. Others refuse to accept that they actually need to learn anything, or in fact that there is anything worth learning beyond what they already know. Of course, this means that they spend the semester feeling that the whole exercise is a waste of time, and as such they get nothing from the experience but frustration, debt, and usually a failing grade. How you approach education has a lot to do with what you get out of it. One of the purposes of a liberal arts education is to teach a reasoned, objective approach to understanding across different fields of study, in other words, critical thinking. This is not, of course, something that all students achieve equally, but the chance that it has been acquired goes up with a degree, which is one of the reasons why employers look for them as a sign of suitability for employment.

Obviously this is drift, but do you feel that some areas of study allow/foster/prohibit this attitude/thought process/discipline or lack there of? Is it mostly the teacher/the student/the material or an approximate mix of the bunch that lends to a learning/ignoring result?

The classes I got the most out of in Engineering were my electives and I usually didn't get the best grades, but I came out knowing a hell of a lot more than I did when I went in and recommended those classes the most. In Math, which I had struggled in, I had a DifEq prof that was a BSME, MSEE, and a PhD. in Math and Physics, the man spoke like he was a mechanic and explained everything like you would righty tighty lefty loosey. He was brilliant. I had a desire to learn and the material was, well, it was a math textbook, but he brought it to life.

I have a BA in English with a concentration in education. My schooling in that has proven to be invaluable in my position as a brewer. It's the difference between just being able to brew, and being able to connect all the dots that make brewing a business.

Our founder did his undergrad work in Chemistry. On the surface, that's way more applicable to brewing (and in direct operations, it is). But I'm the one who's more able to talk about target audiences, events outreach, no-budget marketing moves, and plans to train and motivate workers. I can write brand descriptions that make an emotional connection in one or two lines. I can do that because I am liberally trained and not just a specialist. I can add value to the company as a whole, not just fill a niche.

In reply to Beer Baron:

Good argument, sell any beer in DC?

A degree in and of itself isn't that great an indicator of anything. However, taken with all the other information, it can be a very valuable piece of the whole puzzle about who a candidate is. Sure, if you require a degree, you might miss a very good candidate, but chances are that the best candidate will have that degree mixed in with all the other necessary factors, and it's a pretty simple yes/no question to use to weed out.

If you really are that person even though you don't have that degree, you should have your E36 M3 together well enough to be able to sell how you trained the same sort of skills in yourself through outside means.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: Good argument, sell any beer in DC?

Not yet. Only like the 5 counties surrounding Columbus, OH right now. We will grow, but we need to court more, big investors to get the equipment to produce enough for that. Don't know how long before we distribute out on the East Coast.

I should also add in that my valuable, liberal education includes having put together race cars and done airplane maintenance, and so I understand enough about mechanical things to actually communicate effectively with contractors. Again, it all comes down to pieces of the whole package. I wouldn't be as valuable if I was lacking any of the aspects I have.

Flight Service wrote: Obviously this is drift, but do you feel that some areas of study allow/foster/prohibit this attitude/thought process/discipline or lack there of? Is it mostly the teacher/the student/the material or an approximate mix of the bunch that lends to a learning/ignoring result? The classes I got the most out of in Engineering were my electives and I usually didn't get the best grades, but I came out knowing a hell of a lot more than I did when I went in and recommended those classes the most. In Math, which I had struggled in, I had a DifEq prof that was a BSME, MSEE, and a PhD. in Math and Physics, the man spoke like he was a mechanic and explained everything like you would righty tighty lefty loosey. He was brilliant. I had a desire to learn and the material was, well, it was a math textbook, but he brought it to life.

It's a difficult question to answer, since my thoughts are informed largely by my own limited experience, but I'll try to generalize.

As I understand it, the fundamental point of liberal arts as a basis for education is the diversity of experiences and perspectives across multiple fields of study. Students always wonder why they have to fill requirements in fields well apart from their interests, which misses the point; liberal arts education is about learning to think in ordered and structured ways, which it accomplishes by exposing students to many subjects, each requiring their own approaches to the basic underlying process of critical thought.

Ideally, this would be applied evenly across the curriculum. In practice, it rarely works that way. The fields with a reputation for wide open thought, like philosophy, could usually use some discipline; the fields known for inflexibility, like the sciences, could often benefit from greater openness to new and unconventional thought. The interaction of students and instructors, within the constraints imposed by the administration, determine how close a given course section gets to the ideal learning environment.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to SVreX: Your post is as useful as my rambling thoughts. I have several great insights on here as to what is going on. I appreciate everyone. My retorts come from people asking questions or drift. Nothing else. I do find it amusing that you think that I am trying to be superior when I am far from it. But you take issue to most of what I post so I see no need for you to be considerate now.

Umm... I didn't say you were superior. (Although, you did say something about certain types of degrees being worthless...).

I gave the identical feedback some others have. But if you need a scapegoat, I'll be happy to oblige.

Hey, don't take it personally. I take issue to most of what I say too.

Bottom line is you have to do what it takes to get the job you want.

A non-college graduate could get the job at flyin' miata. But he wouldn't be stopped by what some guy wrote one morning.

In reply to 02Pilot:

Interesting. I have a Philosophy minor to go along with my BA in Journalism, and I would have never considered philosophy to lack discipline.

Sure thought experiments aside, but when it comes to putting down a cogent argument there are definitely certain standards that must be met to constitute a valid position.

z31maniac wrote: Sure thought experiments aside, but when it comes to putting down a cogent argument there are definitely certain standards that must be met to constitute a valid position.

I disagree with the notion that in order to create a proper argument, or to be able to learn to create a proper argument, you need a degree. Its basically my fundamental issue with people getting degrees; they feel they are hot E36 M3 because someone validated them with a piece of paper. You don't need that paper, OR that education to do those things. If it helps you (general you, not you specifically) do that, then great. But to say you need it in order to do those things...

Seems like a silly concept to me. Plenty of the greatest philosophers of the past had no formal education. I can sell water to a whale, and manage groups of people effectively and I have no liberal arts degrees or general courses to my name (as some people have suggested these skills magically come from the degree and not the person themselves).

It just all seems a bit delusional. But then again I am most definitely a more technical minded person, University/college didn't "expand my horizons", it was like "well ya, no E36 M3, people don't know this stuff?"

The_Jed wrote: Do you have a Red Seal certification?

I could apply for it tomorrow if I wanted, but it serves no purpose for me. I want to work in the field as little as possible, red seal doesn't move me in the direction I want.

Rather than choosing degree or experience, have both, and land the job where your competitors have to settle for one of the other. A lot of people also expect the right thing in the right place at the right time. If you find the right thing but are flexible on the time and place, odds are evermore in your favor.

HiTempguy wrote: I disagree with the notion that in order to create a proper argument, or to be able to learn to create a proper argument, you need a degree.

You're right. I agree.

But I don't think Z31 said that.

He said philosophy does not lack discipline.

What's Red Seal Certification?

z31maniac wrote: In reply to 02Pilot: Interesting. I have a Philosophy minor to go along with my BA in Journalism, and I would have never considered philosophy to lack discipline. Sure thought experiments aside, but when it comes to putting down a cogent argument there are definitely certain standards that must be met to constitute a valid position.

You must have had better philosophy professors than me.

I was not as clear as I could have been, and perhaps chose a poor example. Whether philosophy, history, English, or most of the other humanities, there can be a tendency to let things wander about somewhat aimlessly, particularly in discussions. To some extent this is useful - it can promote the development of new approaches and ideas - but it can get out of hand rather quickly. Good instructors will know how tightly to holds the reins to strike a balance.

jamscal wrote: Bottom line is you have to do what it takes to get the job you want. A non-college graduate *could* get the job at flyin' miata. But he wouldn't be stopped by what some guy wrote one morning.

Right. I have no degree. After pissing away a buckets of money on three semesters of college I realized I wasn't going to be an engineer and I had the chance to try something I really wanted to do so I dropped out and joined the circus. I have since applied for jobs that require a degree or experience. I think they write that so people that don't have degrees and aren't very serious don't bother applying. I know I only apply when I think I can sell them that my experience will allow me to do the job well. Sometimes it has worked, sometimes not but The few interviews I've gone to my lack of a degree didn't seem to weigh against me at the time and the people seemed interested in hearing why I felt I would be good for the position.

In reply to Wally:

Did you really join the circus?

Are there people out there who don't need a degree to be the best in the world at what they like? Sure. But finding those people is hard to do. Thankfully, most of them end up being self starters, so they go out and force the world to see their abilities.

But, like it or not, the college system is the one our society chose to teach those skills to the masses. And because of that, it's the first filter when looking at a piece of paper and getting an idea what skills someone has.

It's also more verifiable- that there's a paper trail that proves that you, indeed, did that. Not just a list of things that you have done without any way of verifying it. Again, THAT process isn't perfect, either. But does provide a useful path of information for 99% of the population.

If you can demonstrate your skills over time, or some other way- great. Heck, sports teams have no need for degrees, and are very capable of seeing skills to either have kids leave early, or even skip school all together. But if you are to come up with plans that solve problems- advertising, installation, accounting, design, etc- that's hard to show.

Another reason for degree is liability. If you are hauled into court, would you rather your accounting papers be done by an certified accountant from a college or someone who knows numbers that you met on the street? The classes one is required to take just to get a degree in something does expose them to information that is not that easy to come by- unless you are driven to self teach, that is. But being able to stand up your skill sets with a verifiable background in a court of law is a very useful thing to be able to do.

Is the HR system missing great applicants? Sure.

But the greater the applicant missed, the greater the chance that they are more than capable of doing it on their own.

In reply to SVreX:

Very close. I worked for a race team. I had been working nights as a volunteer and going to school during the day. School wasn't going well since I spent most of the day hanging out in the shop or out in one of the cafeterias and I had been convinced that with my mediocre math skills I should try engineering (another rant). Over the winter break my second year we had someone with money that wanted to go to Daytona with us. We put together a Busch car and went to testing in January. Instead of staying home for class I went to see if I could make anything of it. After Daytona his money ran out but we had a sponsor for the Busch North series so I stayed on full time to see how well we could do and maybe move on from there. I made $100 a week which was about $.75 an hour and had more fun than I ever could have imagined. In the end I didn't make it any further up the ladder but I tried to do something I wanted to do since I was five. I met a lot of very interesting people, traveled on someone else's dime and learned things that I still use now.

As someone who has worked in a field outside of my degree for years I find this thread interesting.

To the OPs original question I think it is a filter. Critical thinking is not something that necessarilly comes along with a BS degree. No matter what the major or the school. A BS degree does demonstrate some amount of time management skill, a bit of perserverence and demonstrates the ability to be trained.

T.J. wrote: As someone who has worked in a field outside of my degree for years I find this thread interesting.

I agree.

I have not used my degree a single day since I graduated 32 years ago, and I've never been asked to see it.

I HAVE, however, been asked if I HAD a degree, and I have used the skills I learned (like how to study, how to follow through, where to find information, and that is you stay up all night chasing girls and smoking dope, you will probably fail something important the next day).

alfadriver wrote: Are there people out there who don't need a degree to be the best in the world at what they like? Sure. But finding those people is hard to do. Thankfully, most of them end up being self starters, so they go out and force the world to see their abilities. But, like it or not, the college system is the one our society chose to teach those skills to the masses. And because of that, it's the first filter when looking at a piece of paper and getting an idea what skills someone has. It's also more verifiable- that there's a paper trail that proves that you, indeed, did that. Not just a list of things that you have done without any way of verifying it. Again, THAT process isn't perfect, either. But does provide a useful path of information for 99% of the population. If you can demonstrate your skills over time, or some other way- great. Heck, sports teams have no need for degrees, and are very capable of seeing skills to either have kids leave early, or even skip school all together. But if you are to come up with plans that solve problems- advertising, installation, accounting, design, etc- that's hard to show. Another reason for degree is liability. If you are hauled into court, would you rather your accounting papers be done by an certified accountant from a college or someone who knows numbers that you met on the street? The classes one is required to take just to get a degree in something does expose them to information that is not that easy to come by- unless you are driven to self teach, that is. But being able to stand up your skill sets with a verifiable background in a court of law is a very useful thing to be able to do. Is the HR system missing great applicants? Sure. But the greater the applicant missed, the greater the chance that they are more than capable of doing it on their own.

In specialized occupations, yes it's essential that the proper training is done and accounting is a perfect example. My daughter wants to be a vet, another good example. I prefer my oncologist have the proper training.

What gets me is non specialized occupations which require a degree of any sort, it can be in underwater basketweaving or whatever. I recently saw an ad for a copier salesman which required a two year degree, no particular degree specified, made no mention of 'equivalent work experience' being considered. That's just ridiculous.

I think it is primarily a way of culling the pool.

The last place I worked would get 200-400 job applications for every 1 job posting.

It was absurd for the HR person to try to find a qualified candidate from a pool of applicants that big. It was equally absurd to have department heads put aside time to interview that many candidates.

It really didn't matter if they were missing a few good candidates. What mattered was how quickly the HR person could find 5 or 10 reasonable candidates to choose from to interview. If none of them were any good, fine, go to the next 5 or 10.

It's a simple shortcut.

Companies can't afford to pay their staff for unproductive time weeding through hundreds of applicants when they only need a few.

Similar to online applications (which look for undisclosed keywords to determine qualifications), or having all applications accepted only through the Labor Department (which weeds out candidates who do not have very specific qualifications).

They can put whatever they want to in the requirements. What's the difference if they find a qualified machinist who has a degree or does not? Either way, they've got a qualified machinist.

Construction companies sometimes do it by requiring bi-lingual. Who cares? Does that have anything to do with an ability to build well? None of the interviewers are bi-lingual, so how will they check?

It kind of doesn't matter. Applicants can complain all they want, but companies are not going to change. The wise thing for applicants is to have the best resume they can which, like it or not, includes a degree.