3 ms·

All good advice. I agree that before pursuing this path, one should be reasonably sure (as much as that is possible) that one will never wish to do something i

All good advice. I agree that before pursuing this path, one should be reasonably sure (as much as that is possible) that one will never wish to do something in a profoundly credential-driven setting. However, I also would venture a guess that a lot of doors hitherto closed to non-graduates are going to open in the future, as the realisation slowly overtakes the next generation or two that universal four-year education has been greatly oversold relative to its price, at least, to the 90% of undergraduates who are going to university out of the sincere conviction that this is necessary in order to make a career in something decidedly "vocational", such as PR, advertising, real estate, insurance, accounting, etc. Markets do have a way of rationalising around these types of inefficiencies eventually, if allowed to do so. Also, if one cannot sustain a great deal of self-motivated, omnidirectional intellectual curiosity and well-roundedness as a matter of disposition, of habits of mind, then this path is probably not the right one. On the other hand, can college correct these deficiencies? I have never seen an example of schooling instilling these life-affirming traits in someone who did not already possess them in some measure. I realise that, pragmatically speaking, incremental improvement is the goal. However, you and I both know that the overwhelming preponderance of undergraduates shuffle in, through and out of college without experiencing a great deal of this ostensible intellectual growth.

abraxasz 15y ago
I'm not too sure about the market correcting these inefficiencies in the near future. I mean, I understand your point, and it makes total sense, but it may not be in everyone's interest to act on this. Let me give you an example. I interned in a company in France that would hire only from the top 3 engineering and top 3 business schools in France. I had friends who where very successful interns in the company, but who didn't get hired full time in the end because they came from the 4th or 5th business school. Now I've been talking about this a lot, and the main argument I heard was: HR people are just trying to cover their asses in case something goes wrong. In France (I don't know if it's the same here), firing an employee is so difficult that companies want to make sure they don't screw up when hiring. Or rather, HR want to make sure that if they screw up, nobody can hold them responsible. If they think a non-degree holder would be a good fit, that they hire him, and that this non-degree holder turns out to be not so good, then everybody is going to ask them why on earth did they bet on someone with no degree. If they stick to someone from a top school, they can still say: look, he seemed really good, he has top credentials.. it's just bad luck, we did everything possible. Someone mentioned institutional inertia above. I think that's exactly what this is about. Note: I'm not generalizing to all HR people. I've read lots of posts on HN concerning the hiring process, and it seems that people take it seriously in the startup world. My small experience in big companies tells me that it works differently there.

abraxasz 15y ago

I'm not too sure about the market correcting these inefficiencies in the near future. I mean, I understand your point, and it makes total sense, but it may not be in everyone's interest to act on this. Let me give you an example. I interned in a company in France that would hire only from the top 3 engineering and top 3 business schools in France. I had friends who where very successful interns in the company, but who didn't get hired full time in the end because they came from the 4th or 5th business school. Now I've been talking about this a lot, and the main argument I heard was: HR people are just trying to cover their asses in case something goes wrong. In France (I don't know if it's the same here), firing an employee is so difficult that companies want to make sure they don't screw up when hiring. Or rather, HR want to make sure that if they screw up, nobody can hold them responsible. If they think a non-degree holder would be a good fit, that they hire him, and that this non-degree holder turns out to be not so good, then everybody is going to ask them why on earth did they bet on someone with no degree. If they stick to someone from a top school, they can still say: look, he seemed really good, he has top credentials.. it's just bad luck, we did everything possible. Someone mentioned institutional inertia above. I think that's exactly what this is about. Note: I'm not generalizing to all HR people. I've read lots of posts on HN concerning the hiring process, and it seems that people take it seriously in the startup world. My small experience in big companies tells me that it works differently there.