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

The college-for-all model isn't working

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 125 posts

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#21

Post by Iftheshoefits »

Jormundir wrote: post #8

College-for-all is fine, and probably an inevitable pursuit. What's not working is the college administrative model.

College-for-all accomplishes two things: commoditization and (failed) attempts at one-size-fits-all education.

Simply put, not everybody is equipped to handle an academic education (in fact, a small minority truly are). At the same time, the vast majority of work being done today in the US in almost any field (including the majority of software development) really ought not be considered "academic" work--it's essentially vocational already. One doesn't need--and shouldn't be required to have--a college degree to be employable in a web app shop or for most development (or other) roles.

The following may be an unpopular sentiment, but I truly believe that the focus on "college-for-all" just frustrates people who are talented in ways that are not academically inclined and, frankly, consumes resources unfairly for those who are. All parties are worse off for it.

What we need is less focus on conflating "academic education" with "education", and the result of that is less focus on "college-for-all."

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#22

Post by aantix »

ignostic wrote: post #16

It's a joke among engineers that you need to graduate from college so that you can start learning. My college experience (non-technical bachelors) was just a joke, period - high school 2.0. Still, I wouldn't have the good job I do now if I hadn't completed my degree. We keep running into this problem where employers think college degrees are more valuable than they probably are. Part of that is impressed culturally,…

I'm not sure why companies ever got away from the idea that they could avoid training employees? In Silicon Valley you see the same pool of startups competing for the same pool of Rails/Backbone.js developers all because they'd rather perceive to get a complete package up front.

The apprenticeship model should be re-embraced.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#23

Post by nsxwolf »

ebbv wrote: post #7

What college for all model? What we have is not college for all, not even close. We have capitalistic college education; where it costs as much as the market will bear, and the ability of the market is distorted by massive student loans which kids are told they have to get as it is an investment into their future. College for all would be if college was free to every high school graduate, and costs were kept down by…

We have crony capitalistic college education, where easy access to government loans causes prices to skyrocket.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#24

Post by aantix »

enraged_camel wrote: post #20
crygin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have skilled labor shortages at the prices they're willing to pay. Every time you hear an employer claim they can't find someone for a position, inquire about the salary they're offering.

This type of bullshit seems to be widely believed on HN. I work in the engineering department of a software company and I'm closely involved with recruitment and interviews. I'll tell you this: the vast majority of people (over 95%) we turn down are unqualified, period. Meaning, we wouldn't hire them even at half the salary level advertised for the position. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're willing to…

So why not train them yourselves? Why do they have to be the complete package upfront?

You get the liberty of guiding their education in a way that most benefits your company and they get to extend their skillsets. Sounds like a win-win.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#25

Post by enraged_camel »

ebbv wrote: post #7

What college for all model? What we have is not college for all, not even close. We have capitalistic college education; where it costs as much as the market will bear, and the ability of the market is distorted by massive student loans which kids are told they have to get as it is an investment into their future. College for all would be if college was free to every high school graduate, and costs were kept down by…

I think by "college for all" they mean a model where everyone needs a college degree to have a chance in the job market. I didn't read it as "everyone goes to college" but rather "everyone must go to college."

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#26

Post by mrxd »

It's hard for me to take this article seriously with so many falsehoods. Shortage of STEM workers? Debunked: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...

College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for higher education and forcing students to pay more.

That said, towards the end there are some good points. It could be argued that there's a public interest in promoting higher education because its necessary for a functional democracy. But if the public abandons this goal and higher education is only for job preparation, then why should the state be involved at all? In that case, state tuition subsidies are really corporate welfare.

Although on-the-job training and apprenticeships are more effective for many jobs, that would mean employers have to shoulder the cost rather than the state.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#27

Post by roc »

pflats wrote: post #9

"Meanwhile, companies in a range of sectors — manufacturing, construction, healthcare and other STEM fields — report severe skilled labor shortages." Construction and manufacturing have severe labor shortages? I'd love to see a source for that claim. In my neck of the woods, they still haven't recovered from the recession.

Labor shortages have this habit of producing wage spikes for the in-demand employees. Absent such spikes, I'm not sure I would take self-reporting as anything more than gossip or political speech.

I would like to see asked, of these people who can't find employees, is how much they've had to increase their salary offers to fill positions.

Because my anecdotal experience is that the people who can't fill positions are essentially looking for the higher-quality, more-modest-salary 'deals' that were more common in 2008/2009. And they're simply not in any hurry to hire anyone at all, so the disappearance of such deals results in continually-open-positions, rather than increased offers or decreased requirements.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#28

Post by Legion »

mrxd wrote: post #26

It's hard for me to take this article seriously with so many falsehoods. Shortage of STEM workers? Debunked: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i... College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for higher education and forcing students to pay more. That said, towards the end there are some good points. It could be argued that there's a public interest in promoting hi…

> College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for higher education and forcing students to pay more.

"Oh it's true, but because of this stupid reason" != "falsehood".

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#29

Post by Iftheshoefits »

enraged_camel wrote: post #20
crygin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have skilled labor shortages at the prices they're willing to pay. Every time you hear an employer claim they can't find someone for a position, inquire about the salary they're offering.

This type of bullshit seems to be widely believed on HN. I work in the engineering department of a software company and I'm closely involved with recruitment and interviews. I'll tell you this: the vast majority of people (over 95%) we turn down are unqualified, period. Meaning, we wouldn't hire them even at half the salary level advertised for the position. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're willing to…

"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are appropriate for the positions you're offering? And what makes you think your salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of companies think their salary/benefits packages are "very generous" when they're anything but. Without context your post is a giant meaningless assertion.

Software developers aren't (typically) stupid. They have a reasonable idea of the value they provide the company. My estimation is that almost every company under-compensates their engineering staff. I doubt yours is an exception.

Re: The college-for-all model isn't working

#30

Post by nsxwolf »

enraged_camel wrote: post #20
crygin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have skilled labor shortages at the prices they're willing to pay. Every time you hear an employer claim they can't find someone for a position, inquire about the salary they're offering.

This type of bullshit seems to be widely believed on HN. I work in the engineering department of a software company and I'm closely involved with recruitment and interviews. I'll tell you this: the vast majority of people (over 95%) we turn down are unqualified, period. Meaning, we wouldn't hire them even at half the salary level advertised for the position. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're willing to…

Parent may be talking about the jobs discussed in this article, not software engineers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-t...

Post reply on HN