Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

kare11.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 314 posts

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#51

Post by paxys »

jedberg wrote: post #24
bell-cot wrote: post #9

I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Or at least no justification that didn't amount to "keep out people who aren't like us", or "pretend to be competent", or "posture as exclusive".

A college degree from an accredited institution shows that you can see through a task that takes 4+ years to complete. There are many other ways to show that, and it's silly to limit anything to only people with college degrees, but that's why people do it.

All that it shows is that you had enough money to pay for 4 years of college. If that were the only criteria then holding on to a job for 4+ years should count for 1000x more than a college degree, because at least you are accountable for results.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#52

Post by Ensorceled »

bell-cot wrote: post #9

I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Or at least no justification that didn't amount to "keep out people who aren't like us", or "pretend to be competent", or "posture as exclusive".

> I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement.

Really? Never?

"A degree shows they have learned how to learn."

"A degree shows they can stick with something for 3-4 years."

"A degree shows they have learned how to write."

"A degree is needed because high school education sucks so bad now."

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#54

Post by elil17 »

undersuit wrote: post #44

We should drop staffers; replace them with a number of representatives closer to the original 1:30,000 in the Constitution. Any direct report to a Representative should be another elected Representative not an employee, if direct reports must exist. Aspiring politicians should work their way up from the state and local level, which has it's own set of problems holding back my ideas. The current system is just a lobby…

I think there's a huge benefit to having politicians work in teams because modern laws are so complex that you need some specialization of labor to read and write them.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#55

Post by augment003 »

bfeynman wrote: post #47
augment003 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College degrees don’t seem to have done anything to make the police less abusive. Why waste money on them when we could instead give police better police training and resources?

Very idealistic to think that money would be reallocated to give police better training and resources, unless you mean military grade equipment for responding to domestic disputes. One can dream though...

True, but it’s only idealistic because nobody is seriously talking about it. The two options seem to either be defund or militarize. If more people talk about sensible options regularly then they won’t seem like pipe dreams.

In any case the point here is that college degrees clearly don’t serve as great police training.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#56

Post by kcplate »

Ensorceled wrote: post #52
bell-cot wrote: post #9

I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Or at least no justification that didn't amount to "keep out people who aren't like us", or "pretend to be competent", or "posture as exclusive".

> I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Really? Never? "A degree shows they have learned how to learn." "A degree shows they can stick with something for 3-4 years." "A degree shows they have learned how to write." "A degree is needed because high school education sucks so bad now."

Those may be justifications people use, but ironically they are all statements that people take as true but in reality often are complete bullshit.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#57

Post by troupe »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #20

University education has a been a "baseline" to determine qualified candidates. It also sorta implies broadened horizons, overall mature thought process, and several other qualities that are desirable the advisors/staffers. What other alternatives exists to University education that impart the same level of knowledge and understanding to an individual that can be consistently measured? If education is expensive, then…

Agreed.

> If education is expensive, then making it less expensive seems to be the natural solution than eliminating its requirement.

Most of the arguments I see saying that college is too expensive are kind of like people using Lamborghinis to say that cars are too expensive. The fact that you can spend $500k on a car does not mean that cars are expensive. The fact that you can go $400k into debt for college doesn't mean that college is expensive. It just means that you can spend a lot on an expensive college if you choose to do so.

If someone takes dual credit courses in high-school, then gets a 2 year degree at a local community college, then transfers to a state school that offers a good return on investment, and does all that while working a part time job, college isn't that expensive.

And the more people try to take that path, the more college will respond to increasing those types of options.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#58

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

bell-cot wrote: post #9

I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Or at least no justification that didn't amount to "keep out people who aren't like us", or "pretend to be competent", or "posture as exclusive".

Hiring employees is a risky prospect and firing a bad hire can be an expensive and lengthy process, depending on the jurisdiction. So naturally employers want to minimize the risk of hiring someone incompetent.

Decades ago the use of IQ testing for job applicants was made illegal. Requiring a college degree serves as a legal and socially acceptable proxy for a level of intelligence.

Whether or not that is actually valid is another matter. From an employer’s perspective the amount of effort to require a college degree is virtually nill and it helps to cut down on the sheer number of applicants they have to process.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#59

Post by hot_gril »

paxys wrote: post #51
jedberg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A college degree from an accredited institution shows that you can see through a task that takes 4+ years to complete. There are many other ways to show that, and it's silly to limit anything to only people with college degrees, but that's why people do it.

All that it shows is that you had enough money to pay for 4 years of college. If that were the only criteria then holding on to a job for 4+ years should count for 1000x more than a college degree, because at least you are accountable for results.

Having a previous similar job helps a ton too. I don't know if they'd even care about college once you have experience.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#60

Post by polski-g »

bell-cot wrote: post #9

I've never heard any justification for having "college education" as a job requirement. Or at least no justification that didn't amount to "keep out people who aren't like us", or "pretend to be competent", or "posture as exclusive".

Its all here: https://spectator.org/how-the-supreme-court-created-the-stud...

> The solution for businesses post-Griggs was obvious: outsource screening to colleges, which are allowed to weed out poor candidates based on test scores.

Post reply on HN