from Hacker News

America's Reverence for the Bachelor's Degree

by elberto34 on 3/13/17, 3:20 PM with 249 comments

  • by brightball on 3/13/17, 4:10 PM

    I always wonder if this is a symptom of a bigger problem that we created.

    As soon as having a bachelors degree became almost an expectation, not having one became a problem to be avoided. We have people borrowing money to go to school because they think they have to...not because they necessarily even need to. Many of the best programmers I know never even went to college...they are just interested in the subject and taught themselves.

    At the same time, we have a public school system that after 18 years with a child...has not actually prepared them to get a job. That's borderline criminal IMHO.

    I always wonder what the effect would be of transitioning public high schools to a structure closer to Cornell's one-course-at-a-time approach (http://www.cornellcollege.edu/one-course-at-a-time/). It seems like giving kids the opportunity to deep dive into one thing (actually, learn it instead of memorize stuff) would be more effective. At the same time, scheduling of classes that taught real skills would a lot simpler.

    Just imagine a gardening and cooking class where you could teach:

    1. Plant biology and genetics of seeds 2. Chemistry and Soil Biology, Composting, Decomposition. 3. Use geometry to design raised bed frames 4. Learn some vocational carpentry to build raised bed frames 5. Plant in different environments, track growth, production, measures in a scientific experiment 6. Learn to cook some different recipes with what you've grown as well as how different temperatures affect what you're cooking (caramelization of onions, etc)

    In a single intensive class you can bring together so many subjects and life skills that seem otherwise unrelated on their own.

    Heaven forbid you take it to the next level and get into programming a farm bot.

  • by mywittyname on 3/13/17, 4:48 PM

    I don't understand American's new-found fascination with vocational training. Why is it they expect education to now provide people with narrowly focused job training over the more traditional broad education?

    Yes, college is expensive and I absolutely think something should be done to resolve that. And certainly not everyone needs a BS to be productive citizens. But societies "reverence" for the Bachelors degree was earned. Historically, these programs equip people with the background and education necessary to advance their careers.

    Like many people here, I have a BSCS, and if computing became obsolete tomorrow, I feel entirely confident in my ability to transition into many other technical careers. My feeling is that a BS should be designed to open up entire classes of career options for people. But I also feel that people who opt for technical training in lieu of general education shouldn't be upset when they find out they can't transition as easily into other fields that require skills they may have never learned.

    I honestly think this article serves as a cautionary tail to reinforce Bachelors "reverence" more than it does to dispel it. A person who spent years learning the depths of Italian cooking shouldn't be surprised when people don't want him managing their businesses. Knowing how to field for truffles and prepare them in a traditional way is nice, but it's not analogous to knowing how to run the logistics of a business.

  • by btkramer9 on 3/13/17, 6:00 PM

    I only got about a third away through this but the beginning doesn't make me want to believe/empathize with the author at all.

    "my nephew was set to graduate from Maryland’s Towson University with a degree in political science. After six long years,"

    Six years for a degree in political science. You have to actively try to take that long to graduate. Maybe he changed majors.

    "Holding up their son’s transcript, his adviser pointed out that he had taken the same economics course twice—one year apart. My nephew hadn’t noticed."

    Really? I've met plenty of people in college who would do things like this. They all had no motivation or interest to graduate. They were there just because their parents made them and could afford it. I think this defends the authors point. However, using two people who clearly have no idea how to pave their own path to a successful life should be used as an example to argue against universities and trade schools.

    Maybe the author is trying to say its the high schools fault for not teaching them. I disagree. Everytime I've seen behavior like this it's because the student just doesn't care or their parents have plenty of money and know they'll be fine no matter how bad they do.

  • by hectorr on 3/13/17, 4:59 PM

    The stock photo for this article is an interesting choice. The graduate paid zero dollars for his quarter-million dollar education, and was guaranteed a job at graduation. In return, he owes them a full commitment for five years of work, and partial commitment for another three.

    The organization that promised to hire him ran the admissions process, set the curriculum, and after training screened him into a particular path for at least the first stage of his new career. He was surrounded for four years by people who will be his professional peers for the entirety of his career. He knows that the likelihood of him reaching the pinnacle of his profession is increased substantially through this network.

    Obviously the military is well set up to do this. I am surprised though that other industries haven't attempted to build schools to train their respective employee bases.

  • by pascalxus on 3/13/17, 4:55 PM

    Also, there's this strange belief that getting more people through degree programs will increase the number of people with higher paying jobs. The number of high paying doesn't change simply because we're increasing the number of degrees per capita - it merely devalues the degree - just as printing money devaules currency leading to inflation. Companies don't just decide to hire more candidates just because there's more of job candidates available. Utlimately, they hire to create value based on market demand for their products.
  • by arrty88 on 3/13/17, 10:14 PM

    I don't mean to sound insensitive but why is it the institution's fault that it took someone without passion or drive 6 years to graduate and why wouldn't the same problems which persisted during college not continue to persist after graduating?

    I know plenty of folks that went to Towson and the only thing that they could do after freshman year was funnel a beer. I know a few that went on to pursue respected middle class careers in tech, legal, education, and health care.

    When will our youth finally start taking responsibility for their own actions or lack there of?

  • by GrinningFool on 3/13/17, 4:23 PM

        > After three years in a college-based apprenticeship 
        > program and three years of solid work experience, he 
        > was still the equivalent of a brand-new high-school 
        > graduate in the eyes of higher education.
    
    So much this. I've considered getting a degree countless times over the years, but have been prevented by the fact that my 2 decades+ professional experience in the field counts for nothing in terms of meeting educational requirements. And the more experience I get, the more painful that fact gets...
  • by m23khan on 3/13/17, 4:22 PM

    I think the answer lies somewhere in having 2-3 years of mandatory civil service for high-school grads which rotates them in various industries: Construction, IT, Mechanical works, Tool & Die, Hospital volunteering, Office clerks, building maintenance, etc.

    In addition, high school should have 'guest' speaker from different lines of work come in (engineer, scientist, mechanic, doctor, HVAC, florist, baker, etc.) and tell grade 12 students about their job responsibilities, how much money they make and advise students frankly about the job.

    Only then the kids can decide with full knowledge what they would like to pursue and their expectations would be realistic.

  • by lordnacho on 3/13/17, 5:03 PM

    I think the problem is the idea that you spend the beginning of your life learning things, and the rest of it doing things.

    The current system does not leave much in the way of learning things (or at least getting credit) later on. This is a problem, because your average 18-22 year old knows nothing about what work they'll find satisfying, or what work will be in demand.

    You also don't know what you'll actually be learning. For instance I did management classes at a well know university. Did I expect to learn something about how to manage? Yes. Did I learn anything about how to manage? No, that's not what management class is about. I suspect many people had similar experiences with their classes. To be fair engineering classes are not about how to be an engineer either, so I don't think it's a science/humanities thing.

    What you do find out in uni is that pretty much anything academic can be learned if you dedicate some time to it. Read a few books about economics, and you'll know the major ideas of that field, presented in a somewhat coherent fashion.

    So what we need is a way for someone who's found an interest to be able to pursue that. You work a bit as a coder, and you realise you should get a CS degree. So you find a course, read, practice, do an exam.

    What's important is people who've discovered this need tend to be in a different life situation from ordinary college attendees. They might have work already, family, and so on. So incentives need to align to allow people to learn things without tearing up their whole life.

  • by mti27 on 3/13/17, 7:10 PM

    TL;DR version of this article:

    1. Author complains her lazy nephew's approach to school (and resulting Political Science degree) did not result in a good paying job.

    2. Author complains her other nephew's lack of a degree and previous chef jobs did not result in a good paying job.

    3. Author advocates for community colleges, blames higher-ed for being "too rigid" for her nephews, and says how much better Germany and other European countries are at training.

  • by MBlume on 3/13/17, 6:21 PM

    I think there's a case to be made that the decision in Griggs vs Duke Power Co. (employers may not administer IQ tests) is the reason we're in this mess. IQ is really important and correlates with lots of outcomes. Employers therefore want to know it. They're not allowed to ask, but admission to/success at an exclusive college correlates well with IQ, so they ask about that instead. Means everyone spends hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life to advertise something that could be measured in an hour.
  • by arca_vorago on 3/13/17, 6:11 PM

    The problem boils down to a twofold issue to me: 1) Schooling is getting in the way of education and 2) Schooling is misinterpreted by lazy employers as education.

    In this day and age, what we need is some sort of more granular description of education and experience. I don't have a finance degree, but I've gone through the Yale econ lectures online.... how do I reflect that knowledge gained when all an employer wants is where did you graduate?

    I see granular descriptions like this all the time on certain forums, down to people listing their audacity courses, tech certs, etc.

    We need to find ways to revive intellectual curiosity and a yearning for knowledge in the masses, not stifle it by arbitrarily tying it down with businesses wants, especially in an information age where much of it is freely available online.

  • by blizkreeg on 3/13/17, 4:27 PM

    I think much of the "useful" college experience can be shrunk to two years for most majors. May be not more specialized fields like aerospace, physics, or the like but even those can do just fine with a 3 yr undergraduate degree. But CS, finance, any arts/commerce majors, liberal arts should totally not need four long years.
  • by gozur88 on 3/13/17, 5:35 PM

    Employers don't really have that much else to go on. In-house tests are a legal minefield, and there are places you can graduate from high school without learning how to read.
  • by segmondy on 3/13/17, 4:41 PM

    Yeah, America already has. The new reverence is for a Master's degree.
  • by jknoepfler on 3/13/17, 5:49 PM

    No it doesn't. It needs to up standards for a secondary degree and double down on its investment in post secondary education. We need more literate, culturally aware, mathematically and analytically capable, scientifically knowledgeable humans, not less.

    The fact that Americans are some of the least intellectually engaged people on the planet is not proof that we need better alternatives to college. We need better alternatives to intellectual disengagement.

  • by bonesmoses on 3/13/17, 3:55 PM

    Is it really a "reverence" though? When practically everyone and their dog has one, it's the new minimum.
  • by taeric on 3/13/17, 4:14 PM

    You could read this as "America needs to get over the infatuation of entering the workforce or college immediately."

    Which, I should add, I'm not against.

  • by typetypetype on 3/13/17, 4:14 PM

    Somewhere in the solution should be encouraging gap year(s) after high school.
  • by paulus_magnus2 on 3/14/17, 2:08 PM

    There should be a room for disruption. Start working right after school, continue education at own paste at MOOC. Get company to allocate 10% time to studying.

    Technology (streaming) enables everyone to have MIT grade education for free (theory part). Exams could be paid. The only labour intensive part of education is the practical part. This could be paid or community based co-study.

  • by ianai on 3/13/17, 5:51 PM

    I think America needs to get over its reverence for the "free market". Healthcare and education are critical needs. Without education we wouldn't have modern medicine, food supply, clothing, housing, etc - you name it. Without any and all healthcare we'd all be dying somewhere between 20-40, if we're lucky. Yet, both "industries" experience ever increasing costs. Consumers in both offset actualized needs with financial tools. Insurance only works if a large majority of people do not use it. That's if you can obtain and afford insurance. Education only pays off if your tuition expenses match up with your employment options. That's assuming you manage to find work out of college.

    If you can't afford insurance then you're stuck paying out of pocket. By the "one price" rule, doctors have to charge an individual the same they charge insurance. An individual cannot strike a deal as easily with a provider as an insurance company can - so they wind up paying 10-100x what an insurance company would. Notice, that's not saying anything about what an insured person would pay.

    There's no corollary to that for education. People finance their education (largely) with loans and up front. They're striking a deal based on what they expect their future income to be. That future income, by the way, probably won't be realized for the majority. For those it is, it may not be realized until 5 or even 10 years down the road. By that point, the loan payments have already started and may have already been scheduled to be paid back completely.

    America needs a new economic model. It needs an economic model that allocates nails and food differently than it allocates healthcare and education. Right now, it allocates immediate needs the same way it allocates 'possible demands'. Financial companies estimate 'possible demands' on imperfect data across imperfect realities. Because those two things are not the same, they need to be handled differently.

  • by wink on 3/14/17, 9:39 AM

    And here I was, thinking Germans and Austrians were kind of in love with their academic degrees, but this sounds even worse.

    But maybe the vocational training is better institutionalized here, so people can actually earn enough as a craftsman or in the service industry.

  • by WhiteSource1 on 3/15/17, 8:52 AM

    Trump's victory showed the power of the uneducated. The Bachelors degree is not only a technical degree but especially in America, with a general education requirement, is also important to teach us citizenship, critical thinking, and educate us beyond our own narrow field. Knowledge of basic history (at least on a survey level) of our country and key places around the world, a basic understanding of our political system, and general knowledge is important to be better people and better citizens. Of course extremely smart people might be able to get this on their own but most of us aren't Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates.
  • by mercurialshark on 3/13/17, 5:29 PM

    I think the title "Reverence for the Bachelor's Degree," is inadvertently misleading.

    There certainly isn't profound respect or reverence for a bachelor's degree itself, from employers or anyone else. However, there is an expectation of social and to some degree, field specific exposure.

    Perhaps the point of the article is there are far more useful ways to gauge someone's career/field specific potential than a bachelor's degree. And if there are more practical assessment tools than not having a bachelor's degree shouldn't be a barrier to entry.

  • by svnsets on 3/13/17, 9:35 PM

    Things I learned in college:

    - How to borrow tens of thousands of dollars without any concrete evidence that I would be able to pay it back

    - How to google (arguably a good skill, but not worth a five-figure price tag)

    - How to write small

    - How to misuse big words

    - How to misuse buzzwords

    - How to use Dreamweaver (I later learned that the correct way to use Dreamweaver is to uninstall it from your computer)

    - How websites were made in 2004 (this was in 2011-2013)

    Things I was forced to learn after college to be even remotely relevant:

    - Every single aspect of my job as a lead software engineer

  • by adrianratnapala on 3/13/17, 6:47 PM

    I think it is telling that the second nephew was a cook. When I think of learning a trade I imagine fitters and turners. And here in Australia we do need more of those skills -- but the chances are that service sector jobs will be more abundant. And some -- like cooking can take the most successful ones a long way.

    That said, I would like to see aprentices rather than interns at my big software company.

  • by ThrustVectoring on 3/13/17, 6:48 PM

    The answer is simple. Make it generally illegal to ask or provide information about your college education as part of interviewing for a job. If there's bona-fide occupational requirement for specialized training, allow certification by exam - the Fundamentals of Engineering exam or what actuaries go through are good examples of this.
  • by Overtonwindow on 3/13/17, 7:09 PM

    The Bachelors degree of yesterday is almost the equivalent to the Masters of today in a lot of fields. It's sadly used as a gatekeeper, erroneously in so many cases. Alas eventually, I predict, a new type of degree will emerge and it will be a combination of the Bachelors and Masters, because the two will be sufficiently diluted.
  • by Afforess on 3/13/17, 5:41 PM

    The government needs to change education to a protected status, like gender, religion, etc. Make it illegal for employers to ask for candidates educational background and degrees. The core issue here is that companies use degrees and education status as a filter and proxy for perseverance, intelligence, and skill, which forces everyone who wants to be employed to obtain a degree. As more job seekers obtain degrees, companies shift minimum educational requirements higher. Higher requirements cause job seekers to obtain yet more education, and neither companies nor job seekers can break this cycle. This is a market breakdown and vicious cycle which needs intervention by the government. (I fully expect libertarians to complain that the government created this mess as a result of too much easy credit in the form of student loans, and they may be right, but undoing that now is a lost cause and moot point) If the government protects educational status, then degrees can't be used to signal educational virtue, and they will cease to be obtained by everyone. University education will revert back to those who desire education for its merits and not its status.
  • by Mc_Big_G on 3/13/17, 6:19 PM

    Bullshit. We need to make it mandatory and free for everyone just like a high school diploma. Alternative option would be mandatory trade skill training. The USA is currently fucked for the foreseeable future due to not caring about education. Let's make it a priority instead of a gigantic military.
  • by upofadown on 3/13/17, 5:45 PM

    Well it does serve as a nice class filter. Lower class people tend to not be able to afford college...
  • by randyrand on 3/14/17, 6:05 AM

    Whats that phrase? "Someone has to be a grave digger?
  • by rc_bhg on 3/13/17, 5:38 PM

    Nah. It's a good system. I fear any alternatives.
  • by aanm1988 on 3/13/17, 7:25 PM

    > has been a collection of dismal white-collar jobs—in a call center chasing down delinquent customers for Baltimore Gas and Electric

    That's not a white collar job.