13 ms·

Is Requiring a College Degree Discrimination? Yes, It Is

28 points by hollaur 6y ago

ndcenterdiploma 6y ago
You will always need a college degree for any type of professional career, if you are thinking about replacing your college diploma for framing or want to purchase a fake joke diploma, get more details from our website www.nd-center.com
theflyinghorse 6y ago
Somehow I managed to get the pop that asked me whether I'd like to be taught to be "Unstoppable" 3 times (I chose mediocrity every time) before I gave up on reading the article
- kergonath 6y ago
  The page never stopped loading for me so... Then, what I read in the comments here does not really make me want to read it.
  - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
    If you want even more of a reason to not read it, the blog is run by Vector Marketing, aka the MLM Company behind Cutco Knives, which probably explains some of the suspect UI design decisions and general anti-education sentiment of the post.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    The page loads only if you do not have a college degree.
im3w1l 6y ago
Wow this guy sounds like an asshole.
- hollaur 6y ago
  #theguysagirlBRO
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    the girl sounds like an asshole
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  Starting off bragging about that Starbucks story was comedy gold. There's a decent chance someone who wanted to convince the guy that his son's degree wasn't as valuable as he thought could make the case. The author had no intention of doing that.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    It's not just how she makes the case either. A complete stranger is happy his son finished college, and she pops out of nowhere to rain on his parade? And then she tells the internet the story without a hint of embarassment?
- pinky1417 6y ago
  *this woman This article does make her sound like* a jerk. I don't mean to suggest Lauren Holliday is* a jerk or an asshole; she might be a perfectible reasonable and respectful person. But her writing here takes reputable evidence and skews it with misinterpretation and appeals to emotion. For example, the NOLO link she uses to support her claim "Filtering candidates by degree is the epitome of wrong and legally, it’s actually discriminatory" merely says that whether it's discriminatory "...depends on its into and its effect." And of course, the NOLO link has nothing to say about the morality of filtering by degree. Similarly, she asserts that "A LOT of rich kids" pay people to take classes/do assignments, which I suppose is true depending on one's definition of "a lot." The implication is that rich people regularly cheat in college. Her goal seems to be persuading employers to drop their degree requirements. Instead of writing a convincing article, she got distracted by frustration and a dislike of the rich. If she writes a follow-up, a better case would be simply support the point: "Employers are likely missing out on superior job candidates because of degree requirements." I think that, along with the bare minimum of outrage, would get closer to achieving the goal and further from encouraging the mob to grab pitchforks.
vmception 6y ago
All three cases by this author are only controversial because we have ignored a greater point: colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. It has been this way for a millennium. The workforce started using them en masse 60 years ago and we’ve been trying to patch this concept ever since. It is great that we have large populations educated in advanced multidisciplinary concepts. There is also no way for the university concept to not exacerbate inequality. This still leaves the need for a way to screen for competent people, something that shows discipline and life stability to commit to something. I think the apprentice concept and trade school does that. Germany has this fairly institutionalized (and also free university). I hope larger economic unions are able to reconcile this.
- tiahura 6y ago
  colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. Not in the US. Harvard was founded in 1636 as a vocational school. The Morrill Act, signed by Lincoln, established the land grant universities. "The mission of these institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science, military science, and engineering (though "without excluding... classical studies") as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class." Wikipedia. Woke is tiresome.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Something having a mission doesn’t mean it is accomplishing that. The actual rebuttal would be about how well it accomplishes a mission, not chiseling at my phrasing.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    The French styles Polytechniques were also founded with very practical applications in mind. And that was in 1794.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
1shooner 6y ago
The strongest pillar of this argument "Degrees are a poor indicator of on-the-job success" is buried almost at the end of the piece. Most of the data the author provides refer to a lack of qualified job applicants rather than impact a degree has on being qualified. They do mention that specific in-demand skills aren't being taught in many places, but I think that misses the point (and alleged value on the part of employers) of a liberal arts education.
disposekinetics 6y ago
We arrive at a place where either discrimination is either not categorically wrong, or admit that for practical reasons we have no wish to eliminate discrimination even if it is categorically wrong.
klmadfejno 6y ago
Author saying “Let me guess… You paid for your son’s education” can fuck off, especially calling the old guy entitled later on. People aren't invalidated by having wealthy parents. The author's reasoning appears to be Wealth implies Education ergo Education implies abuse of wealth. I'd wager most kids at stanford did not get there through special connections. They may have had additional advantages in life that allowed them to self-invest and get into Stanford, but its not without substantial merit. I did not go to stanford* Comparing attendance at Stanford to requiring a college degree is also a pointless comparison. If you're on the fence about whether or not a college degree is required for a job, you're not looking for students from stanford, with the odd exception of programmers who can somewhat frequently big up a large degree of technical expertise on their own. Even if you do want to take the stance that requiring college degrees is discriminatory, shitting on some old guy for being proud of his son's academic achievements without any evidence that it wasn't earned on merit is extremely rude. And for what its worth, I'd bet heavily on a random student from stanford over a random student from my undergrad being more generally competent at intellectual tasks.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  I'd rephrase that as: "On top of financing tuition assistance and scholarship programs via the income tax you pay, your son wasn't eligible for these programs so you had to foot the bill yourself for his education" > And for what its worth, I'd bet heavily on a random student from stanford over a random student from my undergrad being more generally competent at intellectual tasks. I agree. But keep in mind there are outliers everywhere, and selective schools are quite small. The average at a mega-public school might be bad, but the top 10% might be on-par with a smaller more selective school, quality and number-wise.
vorpalhex 6y ago
If the author is upset that challenging and attacking random people gets them told to "go fly a kite", they really need to invest in some social etiquette training. I'm surprised that was the harshest language used.
elindbe3 6y ago
I think Betteridge's law of headlines still applies here even though the question is answered in the title.
vcanales 6y ago
> I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I tried to elaborate about the inequalities of higher education and why it’s an outdated metric of future success. I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. Massive eye roll. I'm sure everyone clapped after that, and they gave them a free coffee, and hung their portrait on the wall. Also, it's "proceeded".
- bzb6 6y ago
  > Also, it's "proceeded" He’d know that if he had a college degree.
  - horns4lyfe 6y ago
    The author has a journalism degree, which makes the entire thing so much more ironic.
    - spiderxxxx 6y ago
      I don't believe the author is railing against getting a degree, so much as railing against these "elite college" graduates being that much better than any other graduate.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
I wonder if people realize that any time a decision is made between option A and B, unless it is a completely random choice using a stochastic number generator, discrimination is being used. That’s how choices are made.
beervirus 6y ago
Author sounds insufferable. Getting into an argument with a stranger and being a dick.
underseacables 6y ago
I grew up pretty low income, Midwest rural, and there’s a clear difference between those of us from my high school class that went to college, and those that didn’t. I busted my butt to pay my way through school, and I am a much better person, and a much better employee because of it. University is an over priced pyramid scheme, but you learn things at university, like work ethic, that really sets you apart from other prospective employees. I see nothing wrong with a job requiring a college degree.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  Unless the degree is for something quite uniquely skilled, it's always been the case that college is just an indicator of baseline dedication and ability to learn on the job. Of course there are always sharp and diligent people that didn't go to college. But if they don't have a degree or work experience, then you have to interview them to find out and possibly do more on the job training. When someone already has lots of applicants, they don't bother finding out.
dvaun 6y ago
I have trouble trusting the claims in the beginning of the article when the source given was not relevant to the author's implication that a degree is primarily for indicating wealth status: > This comment really infuriated me because this type of outdated thinking—that a college degree from an elite, pricey university means you’re set for life—must die immediately. It falsely signals to employers that you’re better than the average Jane just because you have a piece of paper. In reality, all it really signals is your family’s socioeconomic status. The source given[0] for this statement states nothing about employers and college graduates. Rather, it discusses the likelihood for a student to graduate from college based upon family income. Following this: > I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I understand the frustration with both private and Ivy institutions hefty price tags. This has been well covered and isn't something I would debate. After the issue with the first source, I decided to check the source for the infographic (titled "New college grads lack soft skills, employers say") near the end of the article. The Cengage/Morning Consult source[1] didn't have the same figures as purported in the graphic. There is another piece from HRDive referencing this[2] but also does not have the same figures. Regardless of sources, what irks me the most is the idea that a degree is useless for work. Many forms of work require critical thinking, reading and analytics—someone who is able to earn a college degree (regardless of institution status) is able to demonstrate that they have some abilities in these skills. [0]: https://www.americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-predictor-college-success-family-income https://www.americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-pr... [1]: https://news.cengage.com/upskilling/new-survey-demand-for-uniquely-human-skills-increases-even-as-technology-and-automation-replace-some-jobs/ https://news.cengage.com/upskilling/new-survey-demand-for-un... [2]: https://www.hrdive.com/news/soft-skills-top-employer-wish-lists-despite-automations-rise/546255/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/soft-skills-top-employer-wish-li...
tengbretson 6y ago
Where did this idea that SAT/ACTs have some secret backdoor that you can unlock by being rich come from?
kube-system 6y ago
I don’t disagree that high income makes success easier, but I don’t think degree requirements for employment or the ability to afford a prestigious school is the reason. While the US has schools with expensive price tags, it also has respected affordable schools, and a mind-boggling amount of financial assistance available. I would wager that the biggest indicator of success is not household income or college of attendance, but the resources and quality of secondary education. Navigating the college entry process is probably the biggest hurdle for capable students who grow up unprivileged. As a counterexample, there are plenty of highly educated yet lower income people in the US: families with employment in the arts, humanities, academics, etc. The children in these families are not excluded from higher education — they simply have the knowledge to navigate the financial aid process.
blueblob 6y ago
The author comes across as someone who didn't try applying for college and hates everyone that did. The hypocrisy of the entitlement displayed in her first narrative definitely weakens the argument from the get-go. None of the points are particularly convincing, mostly because she picks the base for each of the statistics as whatever best supports her argument. She starts out only talking about elite colleges because that's where she can find corruption and proceeds to pretend that it reflects the entire degree-granting community. "Case studies" 2 and 3 are both the same argument. The last point about degrees being an indicator of on-the-job success is actually saying that 2/3 of people with degrees were considered successful by their bosses. Whether 2/3 is good or bad depends upon how it compares to employees without degrees, a statistic conveniently left out. A degree isn't supposed to be an indicator of on-the-job success; it's supposed to be an indicator of ability to learn, adapt, and manage your time when you are on your own.
pluto9 6y ago
> Then he told me to go fly a kite, because that’s usually what happens when people are wrong and have zero evidence that their stance is right and yours is wrong. It's also what happens when socially clueless strangers interrupt your conversation to make rude comments and you have the good sense not to waste your time on them. Idiotic comments don't deserve well thought out replies.
908B64B197 6y ago
I would bet money that the interaction at Starbucks never happened. The author might have overheard some comments, but the altercation itself truly sounds made-up. Now, I don't want to cargo-cult elite schools, but yes graduating from one of them sends a strong signal. I assume someone who could get into Stanford & al. is minimally competent since he was able to get admitted and graduate from a tough CS program.
taylodl 6y ago
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, better known as 'equal employment opportunity', prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not say anything about college degrees or professional certifications so no, legally speaking, requiring such things is not discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
- kube-system 6y ago
  To give the author the benefit of the doubt, I don't think they said it was illegal discrimination. For example, not hiring someone because of their race in 1963 was not illegal, but it was definitely discrimination.
- tjalfi 6y ago
  Requiring a credential could be discriminatory if it has a disparate impact on protected classes. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.[0] is the Supreme Court case on this topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
motohagiography 6y ago
So glad someone is throwing down the gauntlet on this topic. She's gone deep on it with the data as well. An undergrad provides very little that is distinguishing these days and the distribution of "goodness," it imbues is long-tailed. However, where she sees this obvious discrimination as stupid, I see disruption and arbitrage opportunity. Very excited by these observations.
docdeek 6y ago
>> “My son is golden because he has a degree from Stanford University.” >>I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. Both of these things can be true.
jayspell 6y ago
I can appreciate the authors anger at being filtered through a process that denies employment based on a lack of a degree. I don't disagree that there is a problem, I believe the author lacks a clear vision of what exactly to do about the problem. For senior level roles you do need someway to determine who can actually perform the job, qualifications will discriminate against some pool of candidates. If you require experience you are discriminating based on age, if you require a professional certification you are discriminating against those who haven't achieved the certification. The question seems to be what to do about other roles, like writer, or developer where the pool of applicants can be large. How do you filter out unqualified candidates? Whatever metric you choose becomes the new factor of discrimination. A college degree is an easy button in some sense. It proves you can stick with a long term goal. It proves you can pass some sort of basic tests. It shows you potentially have some of the qualities required. It's not guaranteed, there are horrible lawyers who passed the bar.
y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
It's very telling about what kind of people make up this community when all the up-voted comments are attacks on the author and very limited actual discussion on the topic itself yet the down-voted comments are speaking to the actual problem. You don't have to like the author or their demeanor, but to flag this thread is neglecting how the topic itself is a good fit for HN. What I'm seeing right now is reflective of the elitist attitude on this platform that rears its ugly head from time to time. Clearly this article hit a nerve for a lot of degree holders, it's just a shame they're emotional about it rather than constructive. Go ahead and down-vote me, but that won't make your insecurities go away.
- blueblob 6y ago
  The argument wasn't strong in any way, in my opinion. The article itself limited the discussion by taking a demeanor that is effectively an attack on all college graduates because of anecdotal evidence misapplied as representative. There was no discussion as to what alternatives are to a college degree that employers might find attractive. The writing highlighted the insecurity and hypocrisy of the author. Mostly, the article was a waste of time to read.
  - y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
    > It falsely signals to employers that you’re better than the average Jane just because you have a piece of paper > I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I tried to elaborate about the inequalities of higher education and why it’s an outdated metric of future success. I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. These are important points to consider and I don't see how it's a "waste of time to read". The author provided data from different sources to backup their claim. Do you have any sources to counter those claims? > anecdotal evidence misapplied as representative Such as? Did you happen to skip over ALL the other sources they used to prove their point? > There was no discussion as to what alternatives are to a college degree that employers might find attractive So? This discussion section is a good place for that. Why don't you offer some alternatives since you've thought on it? You're taking an article with enough substance to have a valuable discussion around it and poo-pooing it away because the author is inferior relative to your subjective standards. That's what I'm getting from your comment.
tjalfi 6y ago
Against Tulip Subsidies[0] is a much better argument against credentialism. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...

28 points by hollaur 6y ago

You will always need a college degree for any type of professional career, if you are thinking about replacing your college diploma for framing or want to purchase a fake joke diploma, get more details from our website www.nd-center.com

theflyinghorse 6y ago

Somehow I managed to get the pop that asked me whether I'd like to be taught to be "Unstoppable" 3 times (I chose mediocrity every time) before I gave up on reading the article

kergonath 6y ago
The page never stopped loading for me so... Then, what I read in the comments here does not really make me want to read it.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  If you want even more of a reason to not read it, the blog is run by Vector Marketing, aka the MLM Company behind Cutco Knives, which probably explains some of the suspect UI design decisions and general anti-education sentiment of the post.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  The page loads only if you do not have a college degree.

im3w1l 6y ago

Wow this guy sounds like an asshole.

hollaur 6y ago
#theguysagirlBRO
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  the girl sounds like an asshole
finnthehuman 6y ago
Starting off bragging about that Starbucks story was comedy gold. There's a decent chance someone who wanted to convince the guy that his son's degree wasn't as valuable as he thought could make the case. The author had no intention of doing that.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  It's not just how she makes the case either. A complete stranger is happy his son finished college, and she pops out of nowhere to rain on his parade? And then she tells the internet the story without a hint of embarassment?
pinky1417 6y ago
*this woman This article does make her sound like* a jerk. I don't mean to suggest Lauren Holliday is* a jerk or an asshole; she might be a perfectible reasonable and respectful person. But her writing here takes reputable evidence and skews it with misinterpretation and appeals to emotion. For example, the NOLO link she uses to support her claim "Filtering candidates by degree is the epitome of wrong and legally, it’s actually discriminatory" merely says that whether it's discriminatory "...depends on its into and its effect." And of course, the NOLO link has nothing to say about the morality of filtering by degree. Similarly, she asserts that "A LOT of rich kids" pay people to take classes/do assignments, which I suppose is true depending on one's definition of "a lot." The implication is that rich people regularly cheat in college. Her goal seems to be persuading employers to drop their degree requirements. Instead of writing a convincing article, she got distracted by frustration and a dislike of the rich. If she writes a follow-up, a better case would be simply support the point: "Employers are likely missing out on superior job candidates because of degree requirements." I think that, along with the bare minimum of outrage, would get closer to achieving the goal and further from encouraging the mob to grab pitchforks.

vmception 6y ago

All three cases by this author are only controversial because we have ignored a greater point: colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. It has been this way for a millennium. The workforce started using them en masse 60 years ago and we’ve been trying to patch this concept ever since. It is great that we have large populations educated in advanced multidisciplinary concepts. There is also no way for the university concept to not exacerbate inequality. This still leaves the need for a way to screen for competent people, something that shows discipline and life stability to commit to something. I think the apprentice concept and trade school does that. Germany has this fairly institutionalized (and also free university). I hope larger economic unions are able to reconcile this.

tiahura 6y ago
colleges don’t exist to get you a job. They exist for a class of society, a finishing school where they all meet each other and collaborate on the obscure arts that weave the fabric of our reality. Not in the US. Harvard was founded in 1636 as a vocational school. The Morrill Act, signed by Lincoln, established the land grant universities. "The mission of these institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science, military science, and engineering (though "without excluding... classical studies") as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class." Wikipedia. Woke is tiresome.
- vmception 6y ago
  Something having a mission doesn’t mean it is accomplishing that. The actual rebuttal would be about how well it accomplishes a mission, not chiseling at my phrasing.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  The French styles Polytechniques were also founded with very practical applications in mind. And that was in 1794.
KineticLensman 6y ago

1shooner 6y ago

The strongest pillar of this argument "Degrees are a poor indicator of on-the-job success" is buried almost at the end of the piece. Most of the data the author provides refer to a lack of qualified job applicants rather than impact a degree has on being qualified. They do mention that specific in-demand skills aren't being taught in many places, but I think that misses the point (and alleged value on the part of employers) of a liberal arts education.

disposekinetics 6y ago

We arrive at a place where either discrimination is either not categorically wrong, or admit that for practical reasons we have no wish to eliminate discrimination even if it is categorically wrong.

klmadfejno 6y ago

Author saying “Let me guess… You paid for your son’s education” can fuck off, especially calling the old guy entitled later on. People aren't invalidated by having wealthy parents. The author's reasoning appears to be Wealth implies Education ergo Education implies abuse of wealth. I'd wager most kids at stanford did not get there through special connections. They may have had additional advantages in life that allowed them to self-invest and get into Stanford, but its not without substantial merit. I did not go to stanford* Comparing attendance at Stanford to requiring a college degree is also a pointless comparison. If you're on the fence about whether or not a college degree is required for a job, you're not looking for students from stanford, with the odd exception of programmers who can somewhat frequently big up a large degree of technical expertise on their own. Even if you do want to take the stance that requiring college degrees is discriminatory, shitting on some old guy for being proud of his son's academic achievements without any evidence that it wasn't earned on merit is extremely rude. And for what its worth, I'd bet heavily on a random student from stanford over a random student from my undergrad being more generally competent at intellectual tasks.

908B64B197 6y ago
I'd rephrase that as: "On top of financing tuition assistance and scholarship programs via the income tax you pay, your son wasn't eligible for these programs so you had to foot the bill yourself for his education" > And for what its worth, I'd bet heavily on a random student from stanford over a random student from my undergrad being more generally competent at intellectual tasks. I agree. But keep in mind there are outliers everywhere, and selective schools are quite small. The average at a mega-public school might be bad, but the top 10% might be on-par with a smaller more selective school, quality and number-wise.

vorpalhex 6y ago

If the author is upset that challenging and attacking random people gets them told to "go fly a kite", they really need to invest in some social etiquette training. I'm surprised that was the harshest language used.

elindbe3 6y ago

I think Betteridge's law of headlines still applies here even though the question is answered in the title.

vcanales 6y ago

> I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I tried to elaborate about the inequalities of higher education and why it’s an outdated metric of future success. I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. Massive eye roll. I'm sure everyone clapped after that, and they gave them a free coffee, and hung their portrait on the wall. Also, it's "proceeded".

bzb6 6y ago
> Also, it's "proceeded" He’d know that if he had a college degree.
- horns4lyfe 6y ago
  The author has a journalism degree, which makes the entire thing so much more ironic.
  - spiderxxxx 6y ago
    I don't believe the author is railing against getting a degree, so much as railing against these "elite college" graduates being that much better than any other graduate.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

I wonder if people realize that any time a decision is made between option A and B, unless it is a completely random choice using a stochastic number generator, discrimination is being used. That’s how choices are made.

beervirus 6y ago

Author sounds insufferable. Getting into an argument with a stranger and being a dick.

underseacables 6y ago

I grew up pretty low income, Midwest rural, and there’s a clear difference between those of us from my high school class that went to college, and those that didn’t. I busted my butt to pay my way through school, and I am a much better person, and a much better employee because of it. University is an over priced pyramid scheme, but you learn things at university, like work ethic, that really sets you apart from other prospective employees. I see nothing wrong with a job requiring a college degree.

finnthehuman 6y ago
Unless the degree is for something quite uniquely skilled, it's always been the case that college is just an indicator of baseline dedication and ability to learn on the job. Of course there are always sharp and diligent people that didn't go to college. But if they don't have a degree or work experience, then you have to interview them to find out and possibly do more on the job training. When someone already has lots of applicants, they don't bother finding out.

dvaun 6y ago

I have trouble trusting the claims in the beginning of the article when the source given was not relevant to the author's implication that a degree is primarily for indicating wealth status: > This comment really infuriated me because this type of outdated thinking—that a college degree from an elite, pricey university means you’re set for life—must die immediately. It falsely signals to employers that you’re better than the average Jane just because you have a piece of paper. In reality, all it really signals is your family’s socioeconomic status. The source given[0] for this statement states nothing about employers and college graduates. Rather, it discusses the likelihood for a student to graduate from college based upon family income. Following this: > I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I understand the frustration with both private and Ivy institutions hefty price tags. This has been well covered and isn't something I would debate. After the issue with the first source, I decided to check the source for the infographic (titled "New college grads lack soft skills, employers say") near the end of the article. The Cengage/Morning Consult source[1] didn't have the same figures as purported in the graphic. There is another piece from HRDive referencing this[2] but also does not have the same figures. Regardless of sources, what irks me the most is the idea that a degree is useless for work. Many forms of work require critical thinking, reading and analytics—someone who is able to earn a college degree (regardless of institution status) is able to demonstrate that they have some abilities in these skills. [0]: https://www.americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-predictor-college-success-family-income https://www.americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-pr... [1]: https://news.cengage.com/upskilling/new-survey-demand-for-uniquely-human-skills-increases-even-as-technology-and-automation-replace-some-jobs/ https://news.cengage.com/upskilling/new-survey-demand-for-un... [2]: https://www.hrdive.com/news/soft-skills-top-employer-wish-lists-despite-automations-rise/546255/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/soft-skills-top-employer-wish-li...

tengbretson 6y ago

Where did this idea that SAT/ACTs have some secret backdoor that you can unlock by being rich come from?

kube-system 6y ago

I don’t disagree that high income makes success easier, but I don’t think degree requirements for employment or the ability to afford a prestigious school is the reason. While the US has schools with expensive price tags, it also has respected affordable schools, and a mind-boggling amount of financial assistance available. I would wager that the biggest indicator of success is not household income or college of attendance, but the resources and quality of secondary education. Navigating the college entry process is probably the biggest hurdle for capable students who grow up unprivileged. As a counterexample, there are plenty of highly educated yet lower income people in the US: families with employment in the arts, humanities, academics, etc. The children in these families are not excluded from higher education — they simply have the knowledge to navigate the financial aid process.

blueblob 6y ago

The author comes across as someone who didn't try applying for college and hates everyone that did. The hypocrisy of the entitlement displayed in her first narrative definitely weakens the argument from the get-go. None of the points are particularly convincing, mostly because she picks the base for each of the statistics as whatever best supports her argument. She starts out only talking about elite colleges because that's where she can find corruption and proceeds to pretend that it reflects the entire degree-granting community. "Case studies" 2 and 3 are both the same argument. The last point about degrees being an indicator of on-the-job success is actually saying that 2/3 of people with degrees were considered successful by their bosses. Whether 2/3 is good or bad depends upon how it compares to employees without degrees, a statistic conveniently left out. A degree isn't supposed to be an indicator of on-the-job success; it's supposed to be an indicator of ability to learn, adapt, and manage your time when you are on your own.

pluto9 6y ago

> Then he told me to go fly a kite, because that’s usually what happens when people are wrong and have zero evidence that their stance is right and yours is wrong. It's also what happens when socially clueless strangers interrupt your conversation to make rude comments and you have the good sense not to waste your time on them. Idiotic comments don't deserve well thought out replies.

908B64B197 6y ago

I would bet money that the interaction at Starbucks never happened. The author might have overheard some comments, but the altercation itself truly sounds made-up. Now, I don't want to cargo-cult elite schools, but yes graduating from one of them sends a strong signal. I assume someone who could get into Stanford & al. is minimally competent since he was able to get admitted and graduate from a tough CS program.

taylodl 6y ago

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, better known as 'equal employment opportunity', prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not say anything about college degrees or professional certifications so no, legally speaking, requiring such things is not discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

kube-system 6y ago
To give the author the benefit of the doubt, I don't think they said it was illegal discrimination. For example, not hiring someone because of their race in 1963 was not illegal, but it was definitely discrimination.
tjalfi 6y ago
Requiring a credential could be discriminatory if it has a disparate impact on protected classes. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.[0] is the Supreme Court case on this topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

motohagiography 6y ago

So glad someone is throwing down the gauntlet on this topic. She's gone deep on it with the data as well. An undergrad provides very little that is distinguishing these days and the distribution of "goodness," it imbues is long-tailed. However, where she sees this obvious discrimination as stupid, I see disruption and arbitrage opportunity. Very excited by these observations.

docdeek 6y ago

>> “My son is golden because he has a degree from Stanford University.” >>I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. Both of these things can be true.

jayspell 6y ago

I can appreciate the authors anger at being filtered through a process that denies employment based on a lack of a degree. I don't disagree that there is a problem, I believe the author lacks a clear vision of what exactly to do about the problem. For senior level roles you do need someway to determine who can actually perform the job, qualifications will discriminate against some pool of candidates. If you require experience you are discriminating based on age, if you require a professional certification you are discriminating against those who haven't achieved the certification. The question seems to be what to do about other roles, like writer, or developer where the pool of applicants can be large. How do you filter out unqualified candidates? Whatever metric you choose becomes the new factor of discrimination. A college degree is an easy button in some sense. It proves you can stick with a long term goal. It proves you can pass some sort of basic tests. It shows you potentially have some of the qualities required. It's not guaranteed, there are horrible lawyers who passed the bar.

y-c-o-m-b 6y ago

It's very telling about what kind of people make up this community when all the up-voted comments are attacks on the author and very limited actual discussion on the topic itself yet the down-voted comments are speaking to the actual problem. You don't have to like the author or their demeanor, but to flag this thread is neglecting how the topic itself is a good fit for HN. What I'm seeing right now is reflective of the elitist attitude on this platform that rears its ugly head from time to time. Clearly this article hit a nerve for a lot of degree holders, it's just a shame they're emotional about it rather than constructive. Go ahead and down-vote me, but that won't make your insecurities go away.

blueblob 6y ago
The argument wasn't strong in any way, in my opinion. The article itself limited the discussion by taking a demeanor that is effectively an attack on all college graduates because of anecdotal evidence misapplied as representative. There was no discussion as to what alternatives are to a college degree that employers might find attractive. The writing highlighted the insecurity and hypocrisy of the author. Mostly, the article was a waste of time to read.
- y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
  > It falsely signals to employers that you’re better than the average Jane just because you have a piece of paper > I preceded to tell him that it doesn’t matter if you have a college degree anymore to do today’s jobs and that he was basically bragging about his family’s socioeconomic status, not his son’s actual achievements. I tried to elaborate about the inequalities of higher education and why it’s an outdated metric of future success. I explained why employers are absolutely wrong for thinking his son is better than someone without a degree or a degree from a public university. These are important points to consider and I don't see how it's a "waste of time to read". The author provided data from different sources to backup their claim. Do you have any sources to counter those claims? > anecdotal evidence misapplied as representative Such as? Did you happen to skip over ALL the other sources they used to prove their point? > There was no discussion as to what alternatives are to a college degree that employers might find attractive So? This discussion section is a good place for that. Why don't you offer some alternatives since you've thought on it? You're taking an article with enough substance to have a valuable discussion around it and poo-pooing it away because the author is inferior relative to your subjective standards. That's what I'm getting from your comment.

tjalfi 6y ago

Against Tulip Subsidies[0] is a much better argument against credentialism. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...