Tech companies should take the lead on this. Say loud and clear: we no longer ask about education, and no longer take education into account when hiring, starting today. Devalue the sheepskin.
I get where you're coming from, but honestly I would actually prefer the opposite.
Sometimes, when I'm looking and interviewing for a new job, I really wish we had some sort of standardized, recognized certification that companies could see on my resume and think "OK, this guy knows how to code, we don't need to put him through the BS of a take home, or whiteboarding exercise or whatever". After 15 years in the industry, I'm less and less patient with having to prove myself by explaining how I would find duplicates in 2 arrays or how I would process "very large files" or whatever.
That being said, now we kind of get the worst of both worlds where you need the degree for HR to forward your resume, and you need to dance the "coding interview" anyway.
How else do you propose companies should assess new hires, especially young ones? And while the cost of tuition these days (IMO) outstrips the value of a college education, that’s not to say that value is zero.
The question is rather, how do you think degrees help assess new hires?
1) Programming skills? These are easy to assess with programming exercises. If someone has a degree but can't solve a programming exercise, I won't hire them.
2) Interpersonal skills? But a tech degree doesn't certify those, you need to assess them the hard way anyway.
3) Culture fit? But if you use degrees for that, it's simple discrimination, "let's hire this guy because he's from MIT like us". Not sure why this should be defended.
So in the end, degrees don't seem to help tech hiring in any way. I think tech companies could stop looking at degrees with very little loss.
I think this is a very limited view of what college, and being a great employee, is all about. Yes, I agree that education should not a priori be a dealbreaker. However you're shortchanging here the value of a) accomplishing something over a number of years, which a decent number of people with all 3 of the dimensions you specified, couldn't necessarily do; and b) the Gen Ed side of technical degrees. Strong communication skills and a general intellectual background are both valuable assets in an employee, and aren't captured by programming skills|interpersonal skills|culture fit, but are hinted at by, e.g., the ability to write a 10 page research paper which is a degree requirement for the top-line university certifications.
Yes, all of these skills can be gained and evinced without the traditional 4-yr college route, but I understand why generic Big Corp middle management uses it as a proxy for establishing a baseline in what I, and you've, mentioned.
I'd say the value of the average four year bachelors degree today is less than the value of the average two year trade school, so the value might not be zero but it might as well be.
That being said, I think the assessment problem is real. I'm the founder of a small startup that very few people want to work for (relative to say, Google) and that means I can assess each candidate in careful/unorthodox (time-consuming) ways. Companies at Google scale have to assess thousands of candidates per month (week?) and they have to do it in a way that ensures they're beyond reproach with regard to discrimination.
Having a college degree means you're statistically more likely to know your stuff, period. Correlation or causation isn't material in this case. There would have to be a very good reason for any big company to start ignoring that reality.
Tricky problem. I'd imagine the only solution involves an actual replacement credential. Like a bar exam, but for "private" disciplines. Maybe Neuralink will sort out how to see if you actually have the necessary understandings in your brain.
> the value of the average four year bachelors degree today is less than the value of the average two year trade school
but why do you think this? I see this assertion more commonly than I'd expect here and it always to me seems wrapped up in an implicit glamorization of blue collar work & tradesmen without referring back to, say, quality of life, long-term earning potential, flexibility in occupation, etc.
Because I think the average four year bachelors degree has regressed to soft sciences taught by lackluster instructors with very little rigor. So no glamorization of blue collar work, it's just that a two year trade school is more transactional - if you graduate, you'll have learned a hard skill that you can earn money with. That used to be true for most four year degrees, now I'd guess it's only true for a minority.
I did a lot of interviewing of new grads when I worked at a FAANG. I had the luxury of not needing a prior, and I looked at the resume only after conducting the interview and submitting my recommendation. I rarely looked even then.
The degree might have helped or hindered your getting through the early part of the funnel, but was irrelevant once you got to me.
