4 ms·
I totally agree, but it goes further than just differences between degrees. There are huge differences between individuals and institutions as well. In every a
by ecdavis 11y ago
I totally agree, but it goes further than just differences between degrees. There are huge differences between individuals and institutions as well.
In every area, the best (and sometimes only) jobs go to the best people. Where an applicant attended college can have a big influence on how they're perceived by prospective employers.[0]
The question of individual performance also comes in to play. Some reports have said that almost 75% of STEM graduates don't actually work in STEM.[1] I'm sure some of that is driven by the fact that companies want to hire above-average people - but only 50% of people fall into that category. Even in the current crazy environment in computing, there are computing graduates who can't find jobs.
There's a lot more to this issue than engineering vs. art history.[2] Sure, there's a lot of people who get degrees in fields with small labor markets. There's also the 50% of graduates with below-average transcripts. On top of that, there's people who think attending a lousy college is better than no college at all - they're shouldering a whole lot of debt for something that may ultimately bring them close to zero benefit.
There are a lot of people for whom college has paid off in spades. These people aren't necessarily lucky, they may have simply made more sensible choices.
[0] Of course there are pros and cons to this, but we know it's true.
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-shortage-of-scientists-and-techies-think-again/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-shortage-of-scientists-and-tec...
[2] I'd rather an art history degree from a great school than an engineering degree from a terrible school.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y agoThis. It's also worth mentioning that labor markets change. A lot of people working in Silicon Valley today weren't around after the first crash so they can't imagine how an engineer making six figures today with seemingly unlimited opportunities can find himself or herself making $0 tomorrow with seemingly few opportunities. But it has happened, can happen and will happen again at some point.
- sokoloff 11y agoPeople with genuine talent in the industry have extremely little to worry about, IMO. I was shopping for a used car shortly after the 2000 crash. Car salesman found out what I do for a living and said, "Yeah, I was a programmer for a couple years; made a lot of money. Then when I got fired and couldn't get another job, I went back to selling used cars." The no-talent temporary programmers are the ones who flood into and wash out of the market in crashes. If you have genuine talent, your time between employment is measured in hours right now, in days during normal times, and maybe in weeks during crashes.
- godzillabrennus 11y agoI agree to some extent. At the end of a day if you are a master of something that is no longer needed your employment status will reflect that.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y ago> People with genuine talent in the industry have extremely little to worry about... This is probably true in just about any industry. But you're ignoring the fact that most people employed in tech don't have the kind of "genuine talent" to which you refer. There are a lot of average/mediocre developers (who are not "no-talent temporary programmers") making six-figures building and maintaining run-of-the-mill CRUD apps at venture-backed startups who at some point are not going to be able to hop to another six figure job when their startup runs out of cash.
- sokoloff 11y agoCompletely agree.
- lfowles 11y ago" I'm sure some of that is driven by the fact that companies want to hire above-average people - but only 50% of people fall into that category." And they're already employed/on the track to employment!