Education vs The Job

Here is my .02 cents, I have worked as a teacher in grade school, worked for several fortune 500 companies, and now work in admissions with adults in higher education. I would say at most high schools; the education that I have watched being taught and the lesson plans does not setup a person to be successful in pursuit of finding a job. I would apply that same principal to the two high schools I attended 15 years ago. The people that I worked with at most fortune 500 companies 25% of them had degrees; those who did not have a degree were older than I was by 10+ years. I assume they were taught skills in High School, to be productive rather than waste time on passing standardized testing. Again, most of whom I worked with were successful, driven, and smart, obviously, there are people that were not on that spectrum, but I rather not focus on them. Working in Admissions I have the statistics that shows that 80% of our graduates land a job after graduation, breakdown of the 20% who did not, 10% pursue a graduate degree, leaving 10% that are living on their parents couch. If we look at the high schools students’ unemployment rate, they are among the highest and earn the lowest income http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/
How this reflects the city I live in, is easy, because the factory workers who account for are mostly just high school graduates (non-veterans), in the next 5-10 years their job will not exist regionally. Leaving very few business positions available to more than likely college graduates. Rather at a smaller extent, someone who has a philosophy degree would be more sought after in a business setting, because the experience of the factory worker does not help him or her land a job sitting at a desk. Add to the equation that the college graduate might be more desperate to pay off their college loans and would take the lower wage, and the factory worker that has had free education built into the union, has not pursued a degree, therefore, most businesses would wonder why they did not take advantage of the benefit. The bottom line is High School students by majority are statistical less successful, regardless of how intelligent they are, high education makes a difference. The jobs that were once fruitful for high school graduates are declining and will become non-existent. In addition, there currently is a degree program for everything, making unnecessarily difficult for high school graduates and the pool of graduates gets bigger every Spring and most people are now moving onto getting there Masters.

My father used to do a lot of hiring when he worked in the pension-fund business. He'd always stipulate a need for a college degree, as it would weed out the truly unqualified. He'd agree that many non-college educated folks were as bright as their college-educated counterparts, but he had neither the time or the resources to thoroughly investigate each applicant to see what their ability was. He could also expect those with a degree to possess a decent amount of grammar skills--- not something always present in non-grads.

In any college career, there comes a time where the odds seem stacked against the student. Too little time to complete a project, not understanding a topic throughly with a test looming, juggling requirements and classes that are needed to graduate---- these are all things a college student (regardless of degree) must overcome. Many students drop classes, or leave school entirely when faced with these obstacles.

A bachelor's degree from any major college demonstrates that the applicant had the stamina and drive to complete something that they set out to accomplish. It shows a level of commitment, and determination that companies find appealing in prospective employees. This is why the "piece of paper" is important.

But what do I know.....I'm one of those guys with a "useless" degree.

Wally wrote: In reply to SVreX: Very close. I worked for a race team....

OK. That's better.

I was trying to picture you as the dispatcher of that tiny little clown bus, and wearing really big shoes.

SVreX wrote: The wise thing for applicants is to have the best resume they can which, like it or not, includes a degree.

i'm not disagreeing with the rest of what you are saying is the reality of what happens.

the problem with that assertion is that there is no firm metric to use for best that has ANY tangible meaning, it is a highly arbitrary process and usually highly influenced by the habits of typically a person in a human resources department.

People experience extreme frustration with this because there is no metric for feedback. I don't just mean personal feedback from people on you specifically, I mean an actual observable feedback to any actions. And it is difficult to rationalise those people who want the best applicants but aren't willing to work for it themselves by taking a look at alternate qualification sets and automatically working from the assumption that a degree is the best or only path.

I challenge the notion that they want the best. Instead, they want least likely to have a major gap in capabilities that can't be learned on the fly while working.

That rarely equated to getting the best performing worker for the position.

madmallard wrote: That rarely equated to getting the best performing worker for the position.

The fact is though, you (general societal you) don't need/want the best. You need an 80 percenter. Someone who is good enough at the right price. This is the society we live in today. If you are a 100 percenter, you should probably work for yourself. That's the way I see it anyways.

and i accept the merit of that, but thats not whats being offered as the explanation for those who are charged with filling the positions. They're the ones offering up that the arbitrary non-relevant degree helps them find 'the best'.

thats all i'm saying.

HiTempguy wrote:

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?"

I'm also a technical minded person, my first year was spent taking MET classes until I decided partying/chasing girls was a better use of my time (poor choice at 19 but I've been relatively OK since then). Built mine own cars, etc just like most of us have.

It's OK, I don't really care if you continue to disdain the University system, no skin off my back.

SVreX wrote:

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.

Precisely.

insert snarky comment about reading comprehension and higher education

pres589 wrote: I think it's because HR isn't really that smart. Easy way to determine if you'll see something through to the end and can be teachable? Make sure they have a college degree that is of a level which would require the candidate to take multiple classes that "aren't fun". An Associate's is pretty much all hands on. Math requirements are normally low. Not many gen-ed classes. Degrees are also verifiable. I'm in a somewhat odd situation of having a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering in Technology. Lots of companies do not respect this degree at all and I'm denied jobs because... I didn't take Calc III and Differential Equations? Calc I & II, that's close but no cigar? I blame this on HR departments not bothering to understand the degree. So similar song, different verse. TL/DR: I blame Human Resources departments and practices.

As someone with a "full" electrical engineering degree, I used to look down on anyone with an engineering technology degree. However, I've met some people with those degrees who could engineer circles around me.

Unless your job requires specific training that a degree would give you (advanced engineering, computer science, physics, etc.), requiring a college degree for a job is just stupid. If anything, it should be the OPPOSITE, as in "you weren't stupid enough to go $50K+ in debt for no reason, so you get this job."

So here is what I have gathered so far on the OP.

HR is stupid

HR doesn't have time to weed through candidates and requiring a degree is a method of weeding out candidates.

High School no longer gives the skills required to be a productive worker which shows some semblance of a reason to the "Must have ANY Bachelors Degree" requirement.

HR doesn't have a very good handle on how to evaluate people OR positions.

Did I miss anything that would be from the OP? There are a lot more tidbits gone over but you can read the whole thread for that.

HR doesn't want to take the time to weed through candidates and requiring a degree is a method of weeding out candidates.

FTFY

High School no longer gives the skills required to be a productive worker which shows some semblance of a reason to the "Must have ANY Bachelors Degree" requirement.

I think this is a big deal. I'm not sure if technical education should be a requirement, but with the expense of college and the vast majority of students incuring huge amounts of debt, you'd think the focus would be two fold: get college grads jobs to pay off debt, and get high school grads jobs so they never get it in the first place.

Biggest mistake I've made in my educational and professional career was thinking that because I didn't like my classmates in automotive vo-tech that I should just go back to "regular" classes. Instead I should've switched into diesel mechanics, or IT, or drafting.

High School no longer gives the skills required to be a productive worker

I haven't been in high school for almost 40 years and they didn't do it then, either.

You want to get into a job that requires a college education without one? Work up from within the organization. You want to jump organizations? Have good references and someone recommending you from within.

From a cold-start hiring from outside a company, the "degree required" weeds out a lot without any effort, and the remaining were at least smart enough or hard workign enough to get a degree. Are you missing qualified candidates that way? Certainly. Is it worht the time to find those ones? Probably not.

My time in high school was pretty much useless. I did very well in English and science without any effort, and terrible in math no matter how much effort I put into. I should have gone to a vocational school but never considered it because our school only sent behavior problems there. Everyone else was destined for college and then greatness. I was talked into engineering because nearest my guidance counselor could figure that would get me working on cars without getting dirty. You don't want to end up dirty, you've got a 1300 SAT score. Labor is for idiots. I got accepted to New York Institute of Technology where my nonexistent study habits and short attention span did me in. Had I known at the time what other options were out there I would have made different and probably better decisions.

PHeller wrote: ..:but with the expense of college and the vast majority of students incuring huge amounts of debt, you'd think the focus would be two fold: get college grads jobs to pay off debt, and get high school grads jobs so they never get it in the first place.

Why would we think that?

Is this some societal "for the greater good" kumbaya kind of groupthink?

It's not in a business's best interest to think this way.

Every dollar that a student spends training themselves is a dollar the business doesn't have to spend. There's no incentive for them to lower the bar.

Even if the student learns very little, it's still stuff a business doesn't have to pay for.

Why should a business actaully care that a person gets out of debt? Debt makes an employee more reliable and dependent on their paycheck.

I realize this sounds ridiculously cynical, and I could probably word it better if I took the time, but it is still how many businesses think these days.

It's NOT what I believe in, nor how I have ever run my business, but it is how many (a majority?) think these days.

They get more bang for their buck, because they can.

One place I worked at recently had degreed people being hired as production workers, Doctoral level chemists running basic processes, and everyone solving their own IT problems. Why? Because they could, and they simply got more bang for their buck in the hiring process.

z31maniac wrote:

SVreX wrote:

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.

But I don't think Z31 said that.

Precisely. *insert snarky comment about reading comprehension and higher education*

I quoted what I was commenting on from him,and it quite clearly shows his position on the subject, or there would be no need to bring up the point I quoted in the first place unless he was being pedantic... Which, I mean, it is z31 so I guess I shouldn't have given him that benefit of the doubt :p This is a debate, a discussion, ideas are fleshed out as we talk back and forth.

And that (snarky comment) is exactly the point. My reading comprehension is perfectly acceptable, it is on the writer to properly identify their position, which is always hard in writing due to the difficulty of there being no physical cues or tone from the writing besides what one attributes to it.

I have no disdain for the post secondary education system, I hope if I ever have children they aspire to go and I will support them in that endeavour.

I have disdain for the way it seems to bloat already egotistical minds and then gives them some sort of (perceived) credibility to act like some people are in this thread, that their E36 M3 doesn't stink like everyone elses (insert shoulder shrug here).

I certainly don't disagree with you, but its a shame that it seems nearly 99% of employers out there are trying to exploit the workforce like that, and its also a shame more of the workforce isn't threatening employers with competition by saying "eff you employers, I'm going to start a business and compete with you"

ok, they are, and its called Uber, and even Uber isn't exactly peachy with its "contractors".

HiTempguy wrote: I quoted what I was commenting on from him,and it quite clearly shows his position on the subject, or there would be no need to bring up the point I quoted in the first place unless he was being pedantic... Which, I mean, it is z31 so I guess I shouldn't have given him that benefit of the doubt :p

I read it when you quoted it, and I read it when he wrote it.

You came to a vastly different conclusion to his meaning than I did.

I accepted his words. You extracted a convoluted meaning from them based on, well... I really don't know.

HiTempguy wrote: And that (snarky comment) is exactly the point. My reading comprehension is perfectly acceptable, it is on the writer to properly identify their position, which is always hard in writing due to the difficulty of there being no physical cues or tone from the writing besides what one attributes to it.

The burden you are placing on the writer falls equally on the reader. Assigning an arbitrary meaning does not make it the fault of the writer.

You may have been right about his meaning, or I may have been. But we understood different things, and that makes it quite logical that his writing was not at fault, but one of us was at fault in our reading and understanding.

You are a very smart person with excellent insights, and I generally appreciate reading your perspectives, even if we don't always agree. But you are being extremely argumentative in this thread, and I don't understand it.

Probably has something to do with my worthless degree.

02Pilot wrote: Rather than go into a long rant about the current state of higher education in general and liberal arts education in particular, I'll sum it up in two words: critical thinking. A good liberal arts education teaches people to analyze information and form logically-derived conclusions across a variety of disciplines.

That sounds like work. Can't I just have some guy on AM radio shout to me what I should be thinking?

In reply to PHeller:

I don't think Uber has taken the high road in any way related to their business dealings.

They recognize loopholes, and attempt to exploit them. For profit. That's pretty much it.

I am a much stronger fan of traditional family owned businesses as a model for ethical business conduct, where the owners try their best to treat their customers, employees, and competitors with dignity and respect.

For what it's worth, the application for my current job (at a general auto-repair facility) had a line for prior motorsports experience. Hmm, have done some bracket racing, some track days, some TSD rallies which aren't really "motorsports" but more like "organized country road drives" but it fills out a form.

When I was being interviewed, I was asked if I minded working with odd/obscure cars. I swept my arm back to the parking lot, pointed at my carbureted RX-7, and said "That's my daily driver. I fear nothing."

Well, hell, it got me the job And damn, do we do a lot of performance stuff and things that peg the weird-E36 M3-o-meter. (Test nitrous system on an airboat mounted to a trailer chained to a post: yep, did that)

SVreX wrote: I am a much stronger fan of traditional family owned businesses as a model for ethical business conduct, where the owners try their best to treat their customers, employees, and competitors with dignity and respect.

"Family owned business" can also mean "there is a lot of stupid/shiny happy person in the company and we can't get rid of them because family".

HiTempguy wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

SVreX wrote:

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.

But I don't think Z31 said that.

Precisely. *insert snarky comment about reading comprehension and higher education*

I quoted what I was commenting on from him,and it quite clearly shows his position on the subject, or there would be no need to bring up the point I quoted in the first place unless he was being pedantic... Which, I mean, it is z31 so I guess I shouldn't have given him that benefit of the doubt :p This is a debate, a discussion, ideas are fleshed out as we talk back and forth. And that (snarky comment) is exactly the point. My reading comprehension is perfectly acceptable, it is on the writer to properly identify their position, which is always hard in writing due to the difficulty of there being no physical cues or tone from the writing besides what one attributes to it. I have no disdain for the post secondary education system, I hope if I ever have children they aspire to go and I will support them in that endeavour. I have disdain for the way it seems to bloat already egotistical minds and then gives them some sort of (perceived) credibility to act like some people are in this thread, that their E36 M3 doesn't stink like everyone elses (insert shoulder shrug here).

Notice how you cut out the first portion of my statement? And how SVreX had no problem interpreting? Or the teacher?

2 out of 3 for me, I'm going with you being unnecessarily argumentative.

Knurled wrote:

02Pilot wrote: Rather than go into a long rant about the current state of higher education in general and liberal arts education in particular, I'll sum it up in two words: critical thinking. A good liberal arts education teaches people to analyze information and form logically-derived conclusions across a variety of disciplines.

That sounds like work. Can't I just have some guy on AM radio shout to me what I should be thinking?

Yup, you sure can. Life is all about choices.