Everyone has a degree. Good or bad?

[daenku32]

Here is something to consider: Quit your job so you can have time to go to take college courses, and people will say "hey, good for you". Quit your job so you can study the college text books on your own, and people will say "hey, what the heck are you doing!?"

Personal anecdote: I did the first case. Second case may become a reality in the spring. Hoping the latter part of the second case doesn't come true if that's how it has to be. I'm really thinking about learning things that wouldn't be for credit since I wouldn't be going for a dual/triple degree.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Here is something to consider: Quit your job so you can have time to go to take college courses, and people will say "hey, good for you". Quit your job so you can study the college text books on your own, and people will say "hey, what the heck are you doing!?"

Personal anecdote: I did the first case. Second case may become a reality in the spring. Hoping the latter part of the second case doesn't come true if that's how it has to be. I'm really thinking about learning things that wouldn't be for credit since I wouldn't be going for a dual/triple degree.

What are you taking, if I may ask? I'm doing the same thing...

 

[Kid Eager]

How is this possible?

Is a degree from Harvard equivalent to a degree from UoP?

What about someone who obtains a degree in one field, but then (as they gain other knowledge, skills, etc.) changes fields?

There is no objective criteria, other than observation of a person doing profession X. Degrees are in my view, hardly objective.

At the end of the day, our own critical analysis (hardly objective) is all we can go on.

To be clear, I am not "anti-education". I simply disagree that a degree equates with competency. Many times it will, but not always. Conversely, a lack of a degree doesn't indicate the absence of appropriate knowledge/skill.

Partly disagree with the above: you don't need to rely *entirely* on your own critical analysis.

So far the discussion around degrees seems to approach them as if they were operating in the absence of other forms of certification. This is not the case - trade and professional certifications continue, supplement or substitute for degrees with a specific intention: to establish that the person has achieved some specific minimum level of competency in a subject.

On to the issue of crossing disciplines. If I get a degree in one subject but later enter another profession, the degree counts - but only as evidence that I'm capable of thinking and learning. Conversely, you can use degrees as a mechanism to change professions - as I have done.

Degree certification as a means of vetting candidates for IT management roles has worked pretty well for me in the past. If you have 200 applications, there has to be some mechanism for narrowing the field to the people you actually want to talk to. I used degrees as a basis for both included and excluding candidates when considered in combination with their professional experience:
- hard science and engineering degree with techie work history, you're outta here for a customer-facing relationship management role, whereas...
- hard science and engineering degree with service desk and support work history, you'd likely get an interview.

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

KE

 

[Varanid]

I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

KE

No time to respond right now, gotta go to work. But that is hysterical.

 

[hodgy]

Degree certification as a means of vetting candidates for IT management roles has worked pretty well for me in the past.

I have recruited for IT roles in the past. I never did or will use education as a filter. The vast majority of candidates for the roles I recruited for had degrees so it would not function as a great time saver. It would just provide the possibility to exclude potentially excellent candidates for what is a pretty much arbitrary reason.

 

[hodgy]

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

I think that method would be about as effective (for identifying the best candidates) as excluding every 3rd CV (which would save you time over the hobbies approach).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...why did you ignore my earlier questions?

Good question.
(MK): "Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?"

...We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it.

(MK): "Where? Not in the Bar exam discussion; that related to the relative effectiveness of apprenticeship training versus law school instruction on the same exam. So, ...where?"
Which post of Dr. Kitten addressed the role of competition in restraining the cost of exam administration?

Another "misunderstanding" like "tax-guzzlers", "tax support", and "per-pupil costs" = tuition?

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.

It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.

Interesting that you say this, in view of...

...Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty.

If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?

 

[Kid Eager]

I think that method would be about as effective (for identifying the best candidates) as excluding every 3rd CV (which would save you time over the hobbies approach).

That approach might work. Should I use prime numbers only?

 

[Kid Eager]

I have recruited for IT roles in the past. I never did or will use education as a filter. The vast majority of candidates for the roles I recruited for had degrees so it would not function as a great time saver. It would just provide the possibility to exclude potentially excellent candidates for what is a pretty much arbitrary reason.

As I said in my OP, I used education in combination with work experience as criteria for both including and excluding candidates. If potentially excellent candidates are missed out sometimes, so be it. They just didn't have a resume that made the grade whereas other excellent candidates did.

KE

 

[Garrison0fMars]

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

What were some of the weird hobbies? In fact, why would someone put down hobbies on a CV? Maybe it's a trend I never caught onto...

 

[Kid Eager]

What were some of the weird hobbies? In fact, why would someone put down hobbies on a CV? Maybe it's a trend I never caught onto...

You know, the usual weird stuff: butterfly collecting, antique banjo collecting, anything to do with line dancing, alien visitation research, dentistry...

 

[Mark6]

Because it's not a very effective advertisement for that particular group.

Traditional students, first, tend not to be as emotionally aware of the actual numbers involved; the difference between $15,000 and $30,000 doesn't impact them because they're both large enough for "number numbness" to set in. Second, of course, students expect to be able to take out loans for arbitrarily large amounts and to be able to pay them back out of their completely unrealistic salary expectations.

Speak for yourself. All college-age people I know, including my daughter, undestand very well the difference between $15,000 and $30,000, and would jump onto cut-rate quality college -- if they could find one.

Basically, colleges don't advertise on the basis of low cost for the same reason that sports cars and luxury restaurants don't advertise on the basis of low cost. Because that's not the message they're trying to convey.

IOW, they are lying. They market a necessity as if it were a luxury. Which is another thing my daughter and her friends understand -- but can do little about.

Sorry, but your claim that colleges "fiercely compete" is a joke.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

You know, the usual weird stuff: butterfly collecting, antique banjo collecting, anything to do with line dancing, alien visitation research, dentistry...

Alien visitation research..lol

I guess I'm just used to keeping such hobbies to myself...

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Speak for yourself. All college-age people I know, including my daughter, undestand very well the difference between $15,000 and $30,000, and would jump onto cut-rate quality college -- if they could find one.

As do I. Which is why I try to minimize how much I have to borrow as much as possible (thank you Pell Grant..)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...IOW, they are lying. They market a necessity as if it were a luxury. Which is another thing my daughter and her friends understand -- but can do little about. Sorry, but your claim that colleges "fiercely compete" is a joke.

Remember this:...?

In 1991, the Antitrust Division sued MIT and the eight schools in the Ivy League under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for engaging in a conspiracy to fix the prices that students pay. The Antitrust Division claimed that the schools conspired on financial aid policies in an effort to reduce aid and raise their revenues. The schools justified their cooperative behavior by explaining that it enabled them to concentrate aid on only those in need and thereby helped the schools to achieve their goals of need-blind admission coupled with financial aid to all needy admittees. This paper analyzes the empirical determinants of tuition and finds that the schools' agreement had no effect on average tuition paid. The paper also analyzes the appropriate application of the antitrust laws to not-for-profit institutions. The Court of Appeals found that it is appropriate for the courts to consider non-profit institutions' justifications for collective action (in this case, to enable the poor to attend school) under a Rule of Reason. The Court of Appeals overturned the District Court's opinion against MIT, citing the failure of the District Court to properly apply the Rule of Reason.