Your comment was about a need to change education. > cybersecurity professionals are undervalued and undereducated, I see it every day. Which is more effectiv

Your comment was about a need to change education. > cybersecurity professionals are undervalued and undereducated, I see it every day. Which is more effective at changing that situation? - changing the education system - increasing the cost of laissez-faire hiring practices If a breach cost 100x as much, does the value of qualified professionals go up or down? Do incentives to upskill go up or down? Do oversight and vetting of hires go up or down? You can educate professionals until you're blue in the face: if the cost of hiring people who are underqualified doesn't change, the industry will even settle for unqualified people. If anything you'll just devalue the ones you educated even further: Their time and effort isn't free, meanwhile there's no increase in demand for them because you didn't change the cost of hiring someone dumber. You just took their time without giving them a way to actually get a return on it... unless thanklessly fighting to apply their newfound knowledge in a system that already undervalues them is your idea of a return. _ Of course, you're free to draw whatever pivot/conclusion/aberration/perceived slight you want from here: my father is a PhD, my mother holds a doctorate and they're both from the 3rd world. I've experienced what higher education can do for people better than most, there was no posturing.