4 ms·

The answer is mostly completely obvious, and the fact that you're even asking makes me wonder if you're trolling (EDIT: apologies, I over-reach). Here are some

The answer is mostly completely obvious, and the fact that you're even asking makes me wonder if you're trolling (EDIT: apologies, I over-reach). Here are some categories of jobs for which most people don't or can't self-teach, or where a tertiary degree is the default route: Huge swaths of the medical profession (MDs, BSNs, PAs, DOs, Pharm.D.'s, ...) Non-BSN nurses and expert tradesmen and craftsmen (tertiary == post-secondary, which includes community college!!!) Engineers Lawyers, clerks, etc. Accountants Actuaries Industrial scientists and their surrounding support structure Lots of mid- and uppoer-level management in every sector (many of these roles really do require a tertiary or higher command of statistics and other skills) Educators The whole army of support roles that require an excellent command of written language (good communicators are hard to find, and more often than not have tertiary degrees... those English majors really do often actually learn how to very write well) Even software engineers. I know it's an unpopular opinion round these parts, but the huge majority of excellent software engineers have a tertiary education in CS or a related field (Math, physics, etc.). Could all this stuff be taught without a four+ year degree(s)? Some of it could. Most of it couldn't -- not well, at least. In short, employers hire these people because it's either impossible or very difficult to find people who are ready to work in these roles (or, in rare cases, are even legally permitted to do so) straight out of high school.

niftich 10y ago
It was a genuine question, and here's why: if these advanced degrees possess such importance to their respective fields that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them, that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education. This is troubling, as why should my [insert some other college degree] subsidize companies of lawyers, accountants, actuaries? And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds -- by an applicant showing up with the degree, they demonstrate that they've taken significant steps to increase their attractiveness and employability to the employer. It's a competitive advantage. And that competitive advantage is eroded if a large fraction of the population also attains the same degree.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > It was a genuine question Sorry for the snark then, I've edited my comment. > that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them FWIW I think that's different from what you asked -- refusing to hire people without degrees is different from hiring people with degrees, and is also different from hiring people because they have degrees. It's possible that an employer hires only people with degrees and also doesn't discriminate on the basis of the degree. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than not for most technical positions. The mere fact pf the matter is that most people learn technical skills in tertiary educational programs. > that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education This is unavoidable. Learning to read, write, do basic mat, basic science, etc. are all crucial skills that job readiness programs need to build on top of. Mind you, there are also a lot of other reasons we as a society might want to subsidize education and even particular types of education. E.g., a lot of people argue that health care costs should be addressed on the supply side as well as the demand side. > And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds You go astray here because you assume that education doesn't actually impart real and useful skills that directly benefit the employer. In most cases, the degree is more than a mere signal. edit: apologies for typos; commuting.
- azernik 10y ago
  This is "outsourced" to the public sector because it's very hard for an employer to ensure that they're the ones who will benefit from the expenses of on-the-job training - it's hard to take back the training you've given someone if they decide to leave for another company tomorrow. And we have, as a society, decided that we do not want a system in which companies can force their employees to stay. So, public education. In some countries (e.g. Germany) this is actually funded by industries as a bloc contributing to education in their fields, to reduce the free-rider problem while still allowing market signals to operate, but that's still a quasi-public system.

niftich 10y ago

It was a genuine question, and here's why: if these advanced degrees possess such importance to their respective fields that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them, that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education. This is troubling, as why should my [insert some other college degree] subsidize companies of lawyers, accountants, actuaries? And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds -- by an applicant showing up with the degree, they demonstrate that they've taken significant steps to increase their attractiveness and employability to the employer. It's a competitive advantage. And that competitive advantage is eroded if a large fraction of the population also attains the same degree.

throwawaysocks 10y ago
> It was a genuine question Sorry for the snark then, I've edited my comment. > that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them FWIW I think that's different from what you asked -- refusing to hire people without degrees is different from hiring people with degrees, and is also different from hiring people because they have degrees. It's possible that an employer hires only people with degrees and also doesn't discriminate on the basis of the degree. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than not for most technical positions. The mere fact pf the matter is that most people learn technical skills in tertiary educational programs. > that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education This is unavoidable. Learning to read, write, do basic mat, basic science, etc. are all crucial skills that job readiness programs need to build on top of. Mind you, there are also a lot of other reasons we as a society might want to subsidize education and even particular types of education. E.g., a lot of people argue that health care costs should be addressed on the supply side as well as the demand side. > And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds You go astray here because you assume that education doesn't actually impart real and useful skills that directly benefit the employer. In most cases, the degree is more than a mere signal. edit: apologies for typos; commuting.
azernik 10y ago
This is "outsourced" to the public sector because it's very hard for an employer to ensure that they're the ones who will benefit from the expenses of on-the-job training - it's hard to take back the training you've given someone if they decide to leave for another company tomorrow. And we have, as a society, decided that we do not want a system in which companies can force their employees to stay. So, public education. In some countries (e.g. Germany) this is actually funded by industries as a bloc contributing to education in their fields, to reduce the free-rider problem while still allowing market signals to operate, but that's still a quasi-public system.