This article outlines an opinion that organizations either tried skills based hiring and reverted to degree required hiring because it was warranted, or they didn’t adapt their process in spite of executive vision.

Since this article is non industry specific, what are your observations or opinions of the technology sector? What about the general business sector?

Should first world employees of businesses be required to obtain degrees if they reasonably expect a business related job?

Do college experiences and academic rigor reveal higher achieving employees?

Is undergraduate education a minimum standard for a more enlightened society? Or a way to hold separation between classes of people and status?

Is a masters degree the new way to differentiate yourself where the undergrad degree was before?

Edit: multiple typos, I guess that’s proof that I should have done more college 😄

  • Okashiikessen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I guess the real answer is government subsidized college.

    Free college.

    An investment in the future through rigorous and accessible education.

      • Grangle1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is how it has to start in the US. Subsidizing free college in other countries is much easier because colleges there keep their costs under control, focusing on education and research over the “college experience”, so the costs per student of running said colleges is much lower. There is SO much wasteful spending, brought about by the greed of many US colleges for the near unlimited flow of student loan money coming from lenders especially prominent in the 2000s and 2010s, that can be thrown out to cut those costs.

        Not to mention that fewer people in free college countries actually attend a university, with education systems in those countries designed to steer many students towards places like trade/ag/other schools if they show aptitude in areas they really don’t need a 4-year degree for or really just don’t meet the academic standard to get into those universities. Millennials and Gen Z were all told in the US that we HAD to go to college to get anywhere in the world and we were all pushed in that direction whether it was a good direction for us or not. Now there’s a big labor shortage here in the trades and other blue collar jobs because so few younger people have the proper skills, which aren’t really taught in four-year institutions, or the desire to take on the training or effort to gain those skills. Fewer students spending four years in an expensive university and more in two-year schools or trade schools has the advantage of both lowering overall education costs and providing a workforce with more diverse skills, regardless of the time needed to train them.

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      You know, when the concept of publicly funded education was proposed, it was considered revolutionary and not well supported by some, who didn’t like the idea of the costs.

      We currently have K-12 in US that’s publicly funded education. This idea would essentially just make that K-16.

      This video regarding education has always been one of my favorites: https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms