8 ms·

"guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught" That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you.

by dhimes 11y ago

"guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught" That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you. Let that sink in a moment. No longer are the universities taken at their word about their product. For some of you it has never been any different, but this change came about more or less when I was teaching at university/college. Some of us saw this as a quite profound change. In my view, that was the first signal of the beginning of the inevitable disruption of modern higher ed.

gravypod 11y ago
It's good to know that the teachers/professors who still care are aware of how bad things have gotten. Do you, as a former/current educator, see things changing in the future?
- dhimes 11y ago
  I see two things. One is what I've already discussed. The other is something perhaps just as interesting. Colleges and universities go up for accreditation every ten years (perhaps it varies, I'm not the world expert on this but I've been part of the process). A large part of this process is a self-study conducted by the faculty and staff of the university. In the recent (one-to-two accreditation rounds) past there have been high profile universities that have failed that process. The thing that I find interesting is that the faculty at these universities (to the best of my knowledge) don't particularly give a shit about this process. This accreditation means very little, and is not worth them putting time into. Now, accreditation by their respective professional society is quite important- the Chemistry department cares deeply about what the American Chemical Society (or whomever it is) says, but not about what the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools says. This is exactly the way that certificate programs work: Learning to be a Honda mechanic, for example, requires a program accredited by Honda, not specifically by the NCACS. So it could be that the idea of going to a university and spending $100K on a "broad education" becomes a thing of the past for all but the true scholars, and most people start turning to specialized education for jobs like engineering and computer science. Just a hunch.
david927 11y ago
It's surprising that it's taking so long. The wealthiest have always found ways to preserve their wealth and Ivy League institutions have played a role in that. Take some smart people, a lot of people that are good at fitting the mold that looks best, mix your rich kids in there and call the paint one color. Remember, George W. Bush (all politics aside, just looking at him in terms of intellectual prowess) graduated from Harvard and got his M.B.A from Yale. That's one easily identifiable example but you can find many. And then you ask yourself, if you can take a bus that size through a fortress wall, can you still call it a fortress wall? And then it's clear for what it is -- decoration. Worse: it's signalling, which is the opposite of a meritocracy.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  George W Bush plays much dumber than he is. It's hard to get an unbiased opinion on the matter since it can be used to score political points, but he definitely has >100 IQ.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tzs 11y ago
      Why are you lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together? Those were vastly different situations. Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq. Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan. Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan. There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.
ucsdrake 11y ago
> That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you. You mean an ... interview?! Ok, that was purposely obtuse, but I don't see how an extension of a company's interview process (ensuring, through their own testing, that candidates meet the proper qualifications without school bias) is a bad thing. Or how it signals an 'inevitable disruption of modern higher ed'. Would you mind expanding on that a bit? To me, that helps keep schools honest and continuously adapting their curriculum's, while ensure that the best candidate gets the position, regardless of the institution they attended.
- y4mi 11y ago
  i'm from germany and never visited a good university ( so its entirely possible that none of this happens to graduates from mit, i dont know), but i'm pretty this is what he meant. i applied for several different companies for a pretty low position around 3 years ago. one of the companies was MAN and I had to pass a) an online test for preselection, b) a written exam on premises and finally b) an interview. i fucked up in the interview, but they still mentioned that they would need at least a second interview, probably two, before seriously considering me for this position.
  - Inthenameofmine 11y ago
    European companies are a while other thing though. In most big EU corporations you get hired for position, not skill. The position is ranked relative to all other positions and your rank is determined through your school/education. Case in point, it's very difficult to get hired to a German or Swiss company with a US engineering degree, regardless of the universities standing. I had to go through that myself, it's ridiculous.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Your conclusion is right. To me, that helps keep schools honest and continuously adapting their curriculum's (except for the misplaced apostrophe). In other words: Sure, you have a 4.0 in engineering from Stanford. But now let's see if you can actually compute a Fourier transform. Or even if you know when to use a FT. To my generation, that's damning. In other words, (quoting you here) ensuring, through their own testing, that candidates meet the proper qualifications without school bias is the new normal, and it's different in a way that says we don't/can't trust the universities to deliver their product any more. The status of the universities has changed in our society, and that, in my opinion, is an early signal for a coming disruption.
tzm 11y ago
> That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you I'm seeing this as well and am developing a learning / training platform based on this thesis for professional dev.
rms_returns 11y ago
> No longer are the universities taken at their word about their product. Exactly. Education is a thing where a student voluntarily decides how much effort he/she wants to put in learning, not some software that the professor can install inside their brains. All they can do is check out their past scores to determine how dedicated a student is and only admit such high-grade students. But again, time is fickle and people do change. Lazy and lethargic students suddenly have some life-altering experience and they turn into rank-holders, the opposite can happen too!
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
On higher Ed: There is far more to a degree than the classes and the piece of paper with a GPA. It is also an environment where young people grow as themselves for the first time in their lives in many ways. There is also more that can be done to ensure strong job placement, like my alma mater, RIT, in requiring a full year of paid co-ops before they grant a degree. On hiring: There are infinite metrics that assign value to a candidate regardless of the school they attended; culture fit, for instance. However, hiring is an expensive and labor-intensive process, and every moment an engineer is looking over resumes or conducting interviews is time that could be spent fixing bugs or creating valuable features. Pedigree, for better or worse, simplifies the decision. When you have a stack of resumes to deal with, half from small colleges you've never heard of, and the other half from, say, Cornell, whom do you prioritize?
akhilcacharya 11y ago
> corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you If you're talking about software interviews, know that you need to have pedigree even to get an interview. See Twitter or Palantir recruiting.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Not just software- it started in engineering before software. My point is just that- pedigree is no longer trusted.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > > corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you > If you're talking about software interviews, know that you need to have pedigree even to get an interview. See Twitter or Palantir recruiting. Counterexample: I currently work part-time (alongside my undergraduate studies) at very well-known Linux software company. When being interviewed, there was no mention of any "pedigree". It was simply that I had contributed to the free software project they were looking for engineers for. Simple as that. You'll find that competence is far more important than pedigree. I've always hated the concept of pedigree, it disadvantages people who have skills but are poorer than others. We ought to push for a meritocracy. As a separate matter, higher education should be much cheaper (or just make it free).
crispyambulance 11y ago
While companies do sometimes give tests to candidates coming out of college, it is rarely the case that this is more than a crude in-house diagnostics tool that attempts to gauge very narrow job skill-sets or aptitudes. There is no "Exam".
bduerst 11y ago
Graduating from a top 20 school increases the probability that you'll even get to take that "corporate exam". Recruiters use them as filters.

by dhimes 11y ago

gravypod 11y ago

It's good to know that the teachers/professors who still care are aware of how bad things have gotten. Do you, as a former/current educator, see things changing in the future?

dhimes 11y ago
I see two things. One is what I've already discussed. The other is something perhaps just as interesting. Colleges and universities go up for accreditation every ten years (perhaps it varies, I'm not the world expert on this but I've been part of the process). A large part of this process is a self-study conducted by the faculty and staff of the university. In the recent (one-to-two accreditation rounds) past there have been high profile universities that have failed that process. The thing that I find interesting is that the faculty at these universities (to the best of my knowledge) don't particularly give a shit about this process. This accreditation means very little, and is not worth them putting time into. Now, accreditation by their respective professional society is quite important- the Chemistry department cares deeply about what the American Chemical Society (or whomever it is) says, but not about what the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools says. This is exactly the way that certificate programs work: Learning to be a Honda mechanic, for example, requires a program accredited by Honda, not specifically by the NCACS. So it could be that the idea of going to a university and spending $100K on a "broad education" becomes a thing of the past for all but the true scholars, and most people start turning to specialized education for jobs like engineering and computer science. Just a hunch.

david927 11y ago

It's surprising that it's taking so long. The wealthiest have always found ways to preserve their wealth and Ivy League institutions have played a role in that. Take some smart people, a lot of people that are good at fitting the mold that looks best, mix your rich kids in there and call the paint one color. Remember, George W. Bush (all politics aside, just looking at him in terms of intellectual prowess) graduated from Harvard and got his M.B.A from Yale. That's one easily identifiable example but you can find many. And then you ask yourself, if you can take a bus that size through a fortress wall, can you still call it a fortress wall? And then it's clear for what it is -- decoration. Worse: it's signalling, which is the opposite of a meritocracy.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
George W Bush plays much dumber than he is. It's hard to get an unbiased opinion on the matter since it can be used to score political points, but he definitely has >100 IQ.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 11y ago
    Why are you lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together? Those were vastly different situations. Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq. Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan. Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan. There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.

ucsdrake 11y ago

> That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you. You mean an ... interview?! Ok, that was purposely obtuse, but I don't see how an extension of a company's interview process (ensuring, through their own testing, that candidates meet the proper qualifications without school bias) is a bad thing. Or how it signals an 'inevitable disruption of modern higher ed'. Would you mind expanding on that a bit? To me, that helps keep schools honest and continuously adapting their curriculum's, while ensure that the best candidate gets the position, regardless of the institution they attended.

y4mi 11y ago
i'm from germany and never visited a good university ( so its entirely possible that none of this happens to graduates from mit, i dont know), but i'm pretty this is what he meant. i applied for several different companies for a pretty low position around 3 years ago. one of the companies was MAN and I had to pass a) an online test for preselection, b) a written exam on premises and finally b) an interview. i fucked up in the interview, but they still mentioned that they would need at least a second interview, probably two, before seriously considering me for this position.
- Inthenameofmine 11y ago
  European companies are a while other thing though. In most big EU corporations you get hired for position, not skill. The position is ranked relative to all other positions and your rank is determined through your school/education. Case in point, it's very difficult to get hired to a German or Swiss company with a US engineering degree, regardless of the universities standing. I had to go through that myself, it's ridiculous.
dhimes 11y ago
Your conclusion is right. To me, that helps keep schools honest and continuously adapting their curriculum's (except for the misplaced apostrophe). In other words: Sure, you have a 4.0 in engineering from Stanford. But now let's see if you can actually compute a Fourier transform. Or even if you know when to use a FT. To my generation, that's damning. In other words, (quoting you here) ensuring, through their own testing, that candidates meet the proper qualifications without school bias is the new normal, and it's different in a way that says we don't/can't trust the universities to deliver their product any more. The status of the universities has changed in our society, and that, in my opinion, is an early signal for a coming disruption.

tzm 11y ago

> That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you I'm seeing this as well and am developing a learning / training platform based on this thesis for professional dev.

rms_returns 11y ago

> No longer are the universities taken at their word about their product. Exactly. Education is a thing where a student voluntarily decides how much effort he/she wants to put in learning, not some software that the professor can install inside their brains. All they can do is check out their past scores to determine how dedicated a student is and only admit such high-grade students. But again, time is fickle and people do change. Lazy and lethargic students suddenly have some life-altering experience and they turn into rank-holders, the opposite can happen too!

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

On higher Ed: There is far more to a degree than the classes and the piece of paper with a GPA. It is also an environment where young people grow as themselves for the first time in their lives in many ways. There is also more that can be done to ensure strong job placement, like my alma mater, RIT, in requiring a full year of paid co-ops before they grant a degree. On hiring: There are infinite metrics that assign value to a candidate regardless of the school they attended; culture fit, for instance. However, hiring is an expensive and labor-intensive process, and every moment an engineer is looking over resumes or conducting interviews is time that could be spent fixing bugs or creating valuable features. Pedigree, for better or worse, simplifies the decision. When you have a stack of resumes to deal with, half from small colleges you've never heard of, and the other half from, say, Cornell, whom do you prioritize?

akhilcacharya 11y ago

> corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you If you're talking about software interviews, know that you need to have pedigree even to get an interview. See Twitter or Palantir recruiting.

dhimes 11y ago
Not just software- it started in engineering before software. My point is just that- pedigree is no longer trusted.
cyphar 11y ago
> > corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you > If you're talking about software interviews, know that you need to have pedigree even to get an interview. See Twitter or Palantir recruiting. Counterexample: I currently work part-time (alongside my undergraduate studies) at very well-known Linux software company. When being interviewed, there was no mention of any "pedigree". It was simply that I had contributed to the free software project they were looking for engineers for. Simple as that. You'll find that competence is far more important than pedigree. I've always hated the concept of pedigree, it disadvantages people who have skills but are poorer than others. We ought to push for a meritocracy. As a separate matter, higher education should be much cheaper (or just make it free).

crispyambulance 11y ago

While companies do sometimes give tests to candidates coming out of college, it is rarely the case that this is more than a crude in-house diagnostics tool that attempts to gauge very narrow job skill-sets or aptitudes. There is no "Exam".

bduerst 11y ago

Graduating from a top 20 school increases the probability that you'll even get to take that "corporate exam". Recruiters use them as filters.