A 4 year degree doesn't guarantee success and no degree doesn't mean you can't be successful. But, having a 4 year degree makes it easier to be successful.
...at jobs that require a four year degree. I think the point of the article is there are plenty of jobs people can do that don't require a four year degree.
The average 18 yo considering college doesn't have bills yet. IMO they should aim for the life they want, and do their best to make it work out, not sacrifice 4 years to make a semi-OK possible future work out more smoothly.
BTW if you're going to take semi-lame jobs, you only have to get hired a few times in your life. Optimizing the job search part isn't a great use of time -- even if no college doubles your lifetime job search time, going to college would still be a loss in that respect.
On the other hand, two thirds of 18yos don't know what kind of life they want. And of those that do, two thirds will probably have completely changed their minds by the time they're 25.
Some people are incredibly driven towards a particular set of goals, but the majority of people just sorta drift through life figuring things out as they go.
If you don't know what kind of life you want, how does college help? It pushes you to pick a major, and to pursue a lifestyle where attending college was not a waste of time and money.
And college is extraordinarily boring if you aren't already strongly interested in what you're studying. To get a good value out of college at minimum you need some initiative, and some understanding of what you want to get out of it. You need goals or you will just drift through completely pointlessly -- as many people do.
Of course one can try a variety of things at college. But one can do that outside of college too. Shrug.
Oh, I never said that going to college would help, I'm just saying that your "aim for the kind of life you want" advice isn't helpful to most school-leavers.
I'd agree that if a kid leaves school and doesn't know what he wants to do then going to university may not be the best option at all. Taking a few years off to do something else is a great idea and shouldn't be stigmatized as much as it is.
Heck, if you really want to shake up the education industry then perhaps it should be compulsory: have a university that won't let you in until you demonstrate that you've spent eighteen months in the workforce doing something impressive.
The point of the article is you're not likely to obtain a four year degree by going to college, especially not for only 4 years:
"But federal statistics show that just 36 percent of full-time students starting college in 2001 earned a four-year degree within that allotted time. Even with an extra two years to finish, that group's graduation rate increased only to 57 percent."
Technical education has a much more certain payoff. Bookkeeping, welding, plumbing, nursing, all are possible with 2 year degrees and are ways to get a good job and a good career.
A 2 year nursing degree is a relatively fast way to get into a good income and relatively flexible schedule, allowing further study.
And economists are backing up the 'Don't even waste the money, just go straight vocational' approach.
Sadly, a 4 year degree has become more and more a requirement for a lot of jobs, regardless of talent and skills. Increasing credentialism of this sort will just lower the value of having a degree and also make it more necessary for every professional to have a 4 year degree (which is expensive even at the cheapest colleges).
I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is against education or certification of some kind. The problem is the quality of it.
Academia is insular and has adopted the extremely broad mandate of "making better citizens" which has resulted in a lot of degree programs that are utterly useless. There was a post on HN just a few days ago from someone who was about to get a CS degree and who felt they had no idea how to actually program.
That's the problem and what this article describes is a trend in which those useless degrees are losing favor while more specialized education gains it.
Academia is insular and has adopted the extremely broad mandate of "making better citizens" which has resulted in a lot of degree programs that are utterly useless.
Perhaps, though academia has been specialising in the teaching of mostly-useless knowledge since at least the days of ancient Rome, so it's not likely to be a transient phenomenon.
It depends on how you define success. If you mean "landing a job that pays well" then certainly a degree gives you an edge. If you mean "contributing something meaningful to the world" then I'd say the importance of a 4-year degree approaches zero.
There are so many people making incredible contributions to humanity without college degrees, and so many people simply fretting away their lives in cubicles making slightly more money than they would have without a degree.
Not to mention the fact that a goal of universal college is impossible, let alone unnecessary:
"Whatever his or her claims of solidarity with the Third World, each American college graduate has had an education costing an amount five times greater than the median life income of half of humanity."
Worked in Silicon Valley all my life. The degree meant nothing. Worked with lots of guys with no degree, doing the same job. All that mattered was skills.
"Who I know" has often, but not always, mattered in my career. But what mattered most was that what they knew about me was that I was the kind of developer they wanted to work with.
Perhaps programming is an atypical example, though? Without wanting to offend anyone, could I suggest that programming is a profession more like a skilled craftsman such as a carpenter or a plumber than anything which would have traditionally required a degree?
For the most part it requires a great deal of skill and expertise, but not necessarily so much education. Practice is the most important thing, the amount of actual book-learning you need is quite small. This is why twelve-year-olds who have read a few books are quite capable of becoming halfway decent programmers; and I'm sure a lot of us here were once those twelve-year-olds.
I'm not quite sure how to distinguish between jobs that require skills and those which require education, but I do know that a doctor or lawyer needs years of filling their head with facts about a particular field of expertise before they can start producing useful work, whereas a programmer doesn't.
An interesting book on this topic is 'Shop-class as Soulcraft.'
There may be some virtuoso programmers that can write astounding software without any prior experience. However, there are aspects that take most people years to learn, due to the time it takes to release a project and see it's failings. This is different from learning physics, philosophy, or the academic aspects of law and medicine which can be learned in a classroom setting. However, the practical aspects of law and medicine cannot be learned without years of experience in the field.
So yes, to be able to start practicing software the required body of knowledge is much smaller than medicine or law -- however this is somewhat artificial. There is monopoly control over licensing for doctors and lawyers. If there were monopoly control over licensing for programmers, they might have to spend years in the classroom before practicing as well. I believe that apprentices could start practicing medicine and law much earlier in their careers and learn the facts they need along the way. This would be a lot more affordable for students, but it would lower the wages of lawyers and doctors, so it's probably not going to happen.
"I believe that apprentices could start practicing medicine and law much earlier in their careers and learn the facts they need along the way."
As a medical student that just today finished his first year, I take a little offense to that ;) Namely, there are already fields for exactly what you describe: nurse practitioners, and to a lesser extent, physician assistants. They are taught general patterns of a small set of diseases, and can only diagnose that small set of diseases that specifically follow the course (i.e., pattern) that they were taught.
After a year of schooling, I am nowhere near ready to practice internal medicine or family medicine, let alone specialty fields. I can spot your garden variety shingles, ear infection, etc., but anything more requires experience - and knowledge - that I do not yet possess (even after a year of grueling studying!).
The two professions you mentioned (doctor and lawyer) are graduate degrees.
And no, it's not true just of programming. I'm currently working a job that I would get paid more for with an Associate's in the field... my four years of Ivy League education is totally worthless.
Basically, the only use of a 4 year degree is a stepping stool to a professional degree. For the vast majority of folks, it's completely useless.
I've worked in several jobs that explicitly required a 4-year-degree. One of them even made me bring the physical degree document in so they could photocopy it for their records.
Just read this book myself. For a while after reading it I was hell-bent on becoming a motorcycle mechanic. However, I've come to realize there are a lot of aspects of programming that are similar to the work the author says is involved in being a Mechanic.
I definitely don't believe a degree is necessary. I work for a large company as a Senior (Linux) Systems Administrator at age 26. Most of the guys I work with don't have degrees. I went right into work and jumped companies and got promotions through hard work and self teaching. I agree that for some people it can be very beneficial but a degree is in no way indicative of your skill set and ability.
The problem if that there aren't very many alternatives that are as "secure" as going to college. Bachelors to grad school or the work force is a easily defined route and is proven to provide most people with the long term financial security they desire.
The solution should be to integrate alternate forms of education and preparing for the job market (ie starting your own business or apprenticing for a job) into the college track.
I know there are several pretty glaring differences, but ultimately what are the difference in goal between being a founder in a company and say getting a "Masters in Entrepreneurship".
On a separate note, I know the family of the girl in the article. GO BRUINS!!!
Not everyone can or must be successful in high flying, well paid career terms. People of all skills levels are needed by an economy. The UK government's goal of > 50% university attendance always struck me as insidious. The option should be there, but we shouldn't encourage people who are perfectly happy to not go and who have other non-academic or non-career related goals in life (you'd think being a house mom or dad were a curse, a failure, or something..)
Your inference is in error. No-one would be naïve enough to believe that life is a binary choice between getting a degree and being a homemaker. Regardless, my statements did not claim as such.
36 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 71.9 ms ] threadIt's no big deal at better places. If you don't get a degree, you can spend less time learning at least as much relevant stuff.
Because "big companies with dumb management" hire a lot of people and pay them well?
Most people aren't fortunate enough to have their dream job quite yet and their number one priority for work is just getting the bills paid.
BTW if you're going to take semi-lame jobs, you only have to get hired a few times in your life. Optimizing the job search part isn't a great use of time -- even if no college doubles your lifetime job search time, going to college would still be a loss in that respect.
Some people are incredibly driven towards a particular set of goals, but the majority of people just sorta drift through life figuring things out as they go.
And college is extraordinarily boring if you aren't already strongly interested in what you're studying. To get a good value out of college at minimum you need some initiative, and some understanding of what you want to get out of it. You need goals or you will just drift through completely pointlessly -- as many people do.
Of course one can try a variety of things at college. But one can do that outside of college too. Shrug.
I'd agree that if a kid leaves school and doesn't know what he wants to do then going to university may not be the best option at all. Taking a few years off to do something else is a great idea and shouldn't be stigmatized as much as it is.
Heck, if you really want to shake up the education industry then perhaps it should be compulsory: have a university that won't let you in until you demonstrate that you've spent eighteen months in the workforce doing something impressive.
"But federal statistics show that just 36 percent of full-time students starting college in 2001 earned a four-year degree within that allotted time. Even with an extra two years to finish, that group's graduation rate increased only to 57 percent."
Technical education has a much more certain payoff. Bookkeeping, welding, plumbing, nursing, all are possible with 2 year degrees and are ways to get a good job and a good career.
A 2 year nursing degree is a relatively fast way to get into a good income and relatively flexible schedule, allowing further study.
And economists are backing up the 'Don't even waste the money, just go straight vocational' approach.
None of this is good.
Academia is insular and has adopted the extremely broad mandate of "making better citizens" which has resulted in a lot of degree programs that are utterly useless. There was a post on HN just a few days ago from someone who was about to get a CS degree and who felt they had no idea how to actually program.
That's the problem and what this article describes is a trend in which those useless degrees are losing favor while more specialized education gains it.
Perhaps, though academia has been specialising in the teaching of mostly-useless knowledge since at least the days of ancient Rome, so it's not likely to be a transient phenomenon.
There are so many people making incredible contributions to humanity without college degrees, and so many people simply fretting away their lives in cubicles making slightly more money than they would have without a degree.
"Whatever his or her claims of solidarity with the Third World, each American college graduate has had an education costing an amount five times greater than the median life income of half of humanity."
- Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society (1970)
http://reactor-core.org/deschooling.html
For the most part it requires a great deal of skill and expertise, but not necessarily so much education. Practice is the most important thing, the amount of actual book-learning you need is quite small. This is why twelve-year-olds who have read a few books are quite capable of becoming halfway decent programmers; and I'm sure a lot of us here were once those twelve-year-olds.
I'm not quite sure how to distinguish between jobs that require skills and those which require education, but I do know that a doctor or lawyer needs years of filling their head with facts about a particular field of expertise before they can start producing useful work, whereas a programmer doesn't.
There may be some virtuoso programmers that can write astounding software without any prior experience. However, there are aspects that take most people years to learn, due to the time it takes to release a project and see it's failings. This is different from learning physics, philosophy, or the academic aspects of law and medicine which can be learned in a classroom setting. However, the practical aspects of law and medicine cannot be learned without years of experience in the field.
So yes, to be able to start practicing software the required body of knowledge is much smaller than medicine or law -- however this is somewhat artificial. There is monopoly control over licensing for doctors and lawyers. If there were monopoly control over licensing for programmers, they might have to spend years in the classroom before practicing as well. I believe that apprentices could start practicing medicine and law much earlier in their careers and learn the facts they need along the way. This would be a lot more affordable for students, but it would lower the wages of lawyers and doctors, so it's probably not going to happen.
As a medical student that just today finished his first year, I take a little offense to that ;) Namely, there are already fields for exactly what you describe: nurse practitioners, and to a lesser extent, physician assistants. They are taught general patterns of a small set of diseases, and can only diagnose that small set of diseases that specifically follow the course (i.e., pattern) that they were taught.
After a year of schooling, I am nowhere near ready to practice internal medicine or family medicine, let alone specialty fields. I can spot your garden variety shingles, ear infection, etc., but anything more requires experience - and knowledge - that I do not yet possess (even after a year of grueling studying!).
And no, it's not true just of programming. I'm currently working a job that I would get paid more for with an Associate's in the field... my four years of Ivy League education is totally worthless.
Basically, the only use of a 4 year degree is a stepping stool to a professional degree. For the vast majority of folks, it's completely useless.
Time to close them down and replace them with web sites that use experts (rather than ideologs) to impart knowledge.
A lot of white collar work is requires no real thought only the ability to concentrate. I think this is why so many people hate their jobs.
The solution should be to integrate alternate forms of education and preparing for the job market (ie starting your own business or apprenticing for a job) into the college track.
I know there are several pretty glaring differences, but ultimately what are the difference in goal between being a founder in a company and say getting a "Masters in Entrepreneurship".
On a separate note, I know the family of the girl in the article. GO BRUINS!!!
http://www.millionairedropouts.com/millionaire.php/The_Milli...