I am not so sure how the article reached the conclusion that universities are ones that need disruption:
1. "Employers need skills, not just knowledge or titles" - then why does every job ad require a degree?
2. "Students want jobs, not knowledge or titles" - see above
3. "Students are paying more and more to get less and less" - US-specific (and I am appalled that every discussion on higher education in the US never bothers to see what others are doing)
4. "Students have unrealistic expectations (understandably) about college [...] Not everyone can be a leader, a CEO, a manager, or a highly sought-after knowledge worker" - the pressure to be rich and successful seems to be embedded in our society, universities have a small part in perpetrating this
5. "Many elite universities prioritize research, often at the expense of teaching" - that was the original goal of universities
6. "Instead of boosting meritocracy, universities reinforce inequality" - money gets you ahead anywhere, nothing specific to universities here.
I agree that there is a wide gap between what is taught at universities and what is required in the industry. But the purpose of universities should not be to prepare students for a job in a company. There are plenty of alternatives for that, from coding bootcamps to vocational schools.
1 and 2 have the same answer: it's signaling. Going to college has enough discriminatory power between good and bad workers, and it's also cheap enough for the good workers to buy (behaviorally speaking, it's almost free in US. 4 years later doesn't have any weight with a mean 18 year old's discount coefficient.
This also touches upon 3, everyone keeps going to college so why not jack up the price? It's not like there is any price elasticity or anything.
Every job ad requires a degree because there is no cost to it, and because every qualified person usually has a degree. However no job ad says "a degree is sufficient" -- there are usually other requirements, demonstrated success applying concepts to solve actual problems, a stringent interview process including tests and last but not least, a probation period.
On top of that, the degree requirement is usually waived for the right candidate. On the other side is government, for example in some cases if you need approval for the job or a visa, a degree is a government requirement.
3 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 17.5 ms ] thread1. "Employers need skills, not just knowledge or titles" - then why does every job ad require a degree?
2. "Students want jobs, not knowledge or titles" - see above
3. "Students are paying more and more to get less and less" - US-specific (and I am appalled that every discussion on higher education in the US never bothers to see what others are doing)
4. "Students have unrealistic expectations (understandably) about college [...] Not everyone can be a leader, a CEO, a manager, or a highly sought-after knowledge worker" - the pressure to be rich and successful seems to be embedded in our society, universities have a small part in perpetrating this
5. "Many elite universities prioritize research, often at the expense of teaching" - that was the original goal of universities
6. "Instead of boosting meritocracy, universities reinforce inequality" - money gets you ahead anywhere, nothing specific to universities here.
I agree that there is a wide gap between what is taught at universities and what is required in the industry. But the purpose of universities should not be to prepare students for a job in a company. There are plenty of alternatives for that, from coding bootcamps to vocational schools.
This also touches upon 3, everyone keeps going to college so why not jack up the price? It's not like there is any price elasticity or anything.
On top of that, the degree requirement is usually waived for the right candidate. On the other side is government, for example in some cases if you need approval for the job or a visa, a degree is a government requirement.