How unethical is student financial aid?

[dldelancey]

I just came across a cool saying.

Don't let school stand in the way of your education.

I wish this was mine, but it ain't.

I think it's been around awhile.

But it's, oh, so true...

I know I have learned more on my own than I ever did in school. And I'm still plowing through books and courses as they interest me and/or are relevant to what I want to do.

Michael

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer organizations appreciate the self-educated candidate when making hiring and promoting decisions.

[Robert Baratheon]

I just came across a cool saying.

Don't let school stand in the way of your education.

I wish this was mine, but it ain't.

I think it's been around awhile.

But it's, oh, so true...

I know I have learned more on my own than I ever did in school. And I'm still plowing through books and courses as they interest me and/or are relevant to what I want to do.

Michael

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer organizations appreciate the self-educated candidate when making hiring and promoting decisions.

I've had a few discussions with Serapis Bey on this subject. I'm not convinced that employers' preference for formal degrees has much to do with education at all. I think they rationally use it as a proxy determination of the financial and social status of applicants, which roughly translates into dependability on the job, and further serves as a screening process for rebel-types likely to cause organizational problems.

If you finished a four-year degree program, that in itself might not say much about your intellect or knowledge, but it does tell us certain things about you (on average). It mean you are more likely to come from a stable home life, you're more likely not suffering from any severe financial hardship, you recognize at least some societal expectations and meet them, and you're capable of finishing at least one long-term commitment. These are the factors for which most employers are looking, even above relevant skills and training.

It's not a great proxy determination - and I think most employers realize they're just playing an odds game - but with so little information to be gained from a formal interview process, they are happy to make use of what little verifiable information about an applicant they have. The number one problem employers list for employees is absenteeism - college-educated applicants are much less likely to have the financial or familial problems (breaking down car, sick baby sister, etc.) that would lead them to miss work.

[Darrell Hougen]

I went into engineering with an individualist John-Galt-type creativity in mind. By the end of college, I had learned that there is actually very little creativity left in the field, with most work being incremental improvements and data analysis as part of a much larger team. I'm not a big fan of "set" career paths working for corporate megafirms, so I switched gears a bit and I've been very glad that I did.

You're partly right and partly not. There is a lot of creativity and a lot of simply re-engineering the same things over and over again. In fact, I would say that most engineering work involves re-engineering things most of the time. That's why the things that we use every day keep getting better and better and better. Cars, planes, furnaces, air-conditioners, copy machines, you-name-it have been redesigned and rebuilt scores of times and they are far superior to what they used to be. I can understand why people would find that boring, but it is very useful.

On the other hand, there is also a lot of creativity. At one time, none of those products existed. But, some creative person invented one. I work for a company that mainly writes fingerprint identification software. Most of our time is typically spent trying to make our systems work better or specialize them for particular customers. But, 30 or 40 years ago, it was a brand new technology. Some creative person said, "I bet we could make it easier to find matching fingerprints if we were to automate the process." At that time, image processing was still in its infancy. In some sense, it's still in its infancy. There is simply a tremendous amount that isn't known. So, there are interesting scientific problems that need to be solved. And, as they are solved by creative people, new products that take advantage of that new knowledge will be invented. Then, they will be re-engineered dozens of times until they work reliably and still more dozens of times to make them work even better.

Darrell

[dldelancey]

I just came across a cool saying.

Don't let school stand in the way of your education.

I wish this was mine, but it ain't.

I think it's been around awhile.

But it's, oh, so true...

I know I have learned more on my own than I ever did in school. And I'm still plowing through books and courses as they interest me and/or are relevant to what I want to do.

Michael

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer organizations appreciate the self-educated candidate when making hiring and promoting decisions.

I've had a few discussions with Serapis Bey on this subject. I'm not convinced that employers' preference for formal degrees has much to do with education at all. I think they rationally use it as a proxy determination of the financial and social status of applicants, which roughly translates into dependability on the job, and further serves as a screening process for rebel-types likely to cause organizational problems.

If you finished a four-year degree program, that in itself might not say much about your intellect or knowledge, but it does tell us certain things about you (on average). It mean you are more likely to come from a stable home life, you're more likely not suffering from any severe financial hardship, you recognize at least some societal expectations and meet them, and you're capable of finishing at least one long-term commitment. These are the factors for which most employers are looking, even above relevant skills and training.

It's not a great proxy determination - and I think most employers realize they're just playing an odds game - but with so little information to be gained from a formal interview process, they are happy to make use of what little verifiable information about an applicant they have. The number one problem employers list for employees is absenteeism - college-educated applicants are much less likely to have the financial or familial problems (breaking down car, sick baby sister, etc.) that would lead them to miss work.

On what do you base these conclusions?

[caroljane]

I just came across a cool saying.

Don't let school stand in the way of your education.

I wish this was mine, but it ain't.

I think it's been around awhile.

But it's, oh, so true...

I know I have learned more on my own than I ever did in school. And I'm still plowing through books and courses as they interest me and/or are relevant to what I want to do.

Michael

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer organizations appreciate the self-educated candidate when making hiring and promoting decisions.

I've had a few discussions with Serapis Bey on this subject. I'm not convinced that employers' preference for formal degrees has much to do with education at all. I think they rationally use it as a proxy determination of the financial and social status of applicants, which roughly translates into dependability on the job, and further serves as a screening process for rebel-types likely to cause organizational problems.

If you finished a four-year degree program, that in itself might not say much about your intellect or knowledge, but it does tell us certain things about you (on average). It mean you are more likely to come from a stable home life, you're more likely not suffering from any severe financial hardship, you recognize at least some societal expectations and meet them, and you're capable of finishing at least one long-term commitment. These are the factors for which most employers are looking, even above relevant skills and training.

It's not a great proxy determination - and I think most employers realize they're just playing an odds game - but with so little information to be gained from a formal interview process, they are happy to make use of what little verifiable information about an applicant they have. The number one problem employers list for employees is absenteeism - college-educated applicants are much less likely to have the financial or familial problems (breaking down car, sick baby sister, etc.) that would lead them to miss work.

On what do you base these conclusions?

One guess on this comes to me right off the bat. The shrinking number of decent paying jobs and the excess of applicants forces hirers to raise the credential bar, albeit on the arbitrary basis of formal education. Don't know if RB will agree though.

I will guess one right off the bat.

[Darrell Hougen]

The barkeeper says, "We don't serve faster than light particles here." A tachyon walks into a bar.

Carol, you need to work on your editing skills. How is it that your comments often end up as part of the previous quote?

Darrell

[caroljane]

I don't know, it's magic -

Shakespeare in Love

[dldelancey]

The shrinking number of decent paying jobs and the excess of applicants

And on what do you base your conclusion?

I'm not necessarily questioning the validity or rationality of your or RB's conclusions. However, neither your conclusions nor the employment statistics jibe with my own personal experience. It's quite perplexing.

For instance, in contradiction to RB, a former employer of mine decided to make a bachelor's degree a requirement for anyone with direct reports. This was an organization that had very low turnover and promoting from within was desirable. With this new requirement, people who had been with the company years and were in good standing with outstanding records, but without the degree, were no longer eligible for promotion. The result was managment positions being unfilled for extended periods of time while the company went to great expense recruiting and relocating.

In contradiction to you, I have struggled for the past 10 years to find applicants for well-paying jobs. And I do literally mean applicants. I'm not even referring to good candidates. I mean, literally, I've had really good positions that had zero applicants.

Perhaps it's my domain (technology) or perhaps it's my area (greater New Orleans). Dunno.

[Robert Baratheon]

On what do you base these conclusions?

It's speculation based on the reasoning I provided. Until computers can read brainwaves directly, we won't have any tangible proof of what goes through employers' minds.

Since it's become common knowledge that college is now little more than a four-year vacation in prolonged adolescence for most, I have to assume that the continued preference for college grads among hiring firms is based on *something* and isn't just irrational elitism run amok. Knowing that somebody is a college grad surely tells you some things about that individual from a probabilistic standpoint - the question is whether the information is valuable to the employer. I assert that it is valuable, but perhaps not for the reasons one might hope for or expect.

[Robert Baratheon]

And on what do you base your conclusion?

I'm not necessarily questioning the validity or rationality of your or RB's conclusions. However, neither your conclusions nor the employment statistics jibe with my own personal experience. It's quite perplexing.

For instance, in contradiction to RB, a former employer of mine decided to make a bachelor's degree a requirement for anyone with direct reports. This was an organization that had very low turnover and promoting from within was desirable. With this new requirement, people who had been with the company years and were in good standing with outstanding records, but without the degree, were no longer eligible for promotion. The result was managment positions being unfilled for extended periods of time while the company went to great expense recruiting and relocating.

In contradiction to you, I have struggled for the past 10 years to find applicants for well-paying jobs. And I do literally mean applicants. I'm not even referring to good candidates. I mean, literally, I've had really good positions that had zero applicants.

Perhaps it's my domain (technology) or perhaps it's my area (greater New Orleans). Dunno.

Perhaps. Your firm's situation is certainly unusual. My agency has been getting 500 or more highly qualified applicants for every position it has opened over the past few years. We can logically assume that, despite being well paying, the jobs you are listing are not all that desirable for some reason or other.

It is an oft-repeated canard in the U.S. that technology firms "can't find" qualified applicants to fill their positions. Host of EconTalk Russ Roberts likes to ask complaining employers why they don't simply pay more to attract talent. Then the hemming and hawing begins. The proof is in the pudding that most of the complaining firms 1) don't really need, 2) don't really value, or 3) can't really afford the quality of talent they purport to be seeking in the first place. I'm similarly unimpressed with the lament that we "need more STEM" workers in the United States. If there is such an unfilled need out there for technology workers, then why don't the positions pay more?

[caroljane]

Or perhaps the requirements are so highly niche-specialized that "Skills shortage" really exists in those niches. I don't know technology but I keep hearing this about it.

[BaalChatzaf]

And on what do you base your conclusion?

I'm not necessarily questioning the validity or rationality of your or RB's conclusions. However, neither your conclusions nor the employment statistics jibe with my own personal experience. It's quite perplexing.

For instance, in contradiction to RB, a former employer of mine decided to make a bachelor's degree a requirement for anyone with direct reports. This was an organization that had very low turnover and promoting from within was desirable. With this new requirement, people who had been with the company years and were in good standing with outstanding records, but without the degree, were no longer eligible for promotion. The result was managment positions being unfilled for extended periods of time while the company went to great expense recruiting and relocating.

In contradiction to you, I have struggled for the past 10 years to find applicants for well-paying jobs. And I do literally mean applicants. I'm not even referring to good candidates. I mean, literally, I've had really good positions that had zero applicants.

Perhaps it's my domain (technology) or perhaps it's my area (greater New Orleans). Dunno.

Perhaps. Your firm's situation is certainly unusual. My agency has been getting 500 or more highly qualified applicants for every position it has opened over the past few years. We can logically assume that, despite being well paying, the jobs you are listing are not all that desirable for some reason or other.

It is an oft-repeated canard in the U.S. that technology firms "can't find" qualified applicants to fill their positions. Host of EconTalk Russ Roberts likes to ask complaining employers why they don't simply pay more to attract talent. Then the hemming and hawing begins. The proof is in the pudding that most of the complaining firms 1) don't really need, 2) don't really value, or 3) can't really afford the quality of talent they purport to be seeking in the first place. I'm similarly unimpressed with the lament that we "need more STEM" workers in the United States. If there is such an unfilled need out there for technology workers, then why don't the positions pay more?

Foreign help will settle for lower wages. It is as simple as that.

[PDS]

Back to the original post: I too struggled with this question in college and law school. My advice and hope would be that Student Gohrik not let this issue bother him. In other words, don't beat yourself up over this (as I did, unfortunately).

It is true that a coward dies a thousand times, and hero only once. This is not an issue to die on, psychologically, or otherwise.

You have a long road ahead where real choices that bear on your integrity will have to be made. This issue is not one of them either.

[caroljane]

As to decent paying jobs that require only high school - when a rare opening for subway janitors comes up, there are usually around 800 people fighting for one mop handle.A

My son, who had never even picked his own clothes up off the floor, was one of the lucky ones. He proudly pushed his broom until he got in trouble for helping an old lady up the stairs with her groceries one day. Then he managed a transfer to trackworker, and plans to upgrade to a trade via night college.

[Dglgmut]

I don't think it will be too long until college and university is replaced by schooling/training programs cooperatively run by corporations that hope to utilize the students afterward.

This would obviously be more effective and less costly for everyone.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In contradiction to you, I have struggled for the past 10 years to find applicants for well-paying jobs. And I do literally mean applicants. I'm not even referring to good candidates. I mean, literally, I've had really good positions that had zero applicants.

Deanna,

I don't know if your firm deals with computer technology, but what if an young applicant showed up who had dropped out of highschool, but was a hacker going straight? A bit of a smartass, but your sense of character judged him to be sincere?

Sort of like the people who haunt Defcon (or see here) or, maybe, Social Engineering?

How would you evaluate a person like that?

Would a lack of a degree be an issue blocking his or her employment?

Or would you rethink your structure and make a flexible place for this person? Throw out the rule-book so to speak and see how your company could tap into the wealth-generating capacity of this person?

I ask, because I suspect lots of startups are doing precisely this. Even if I were in an old established company, I know I certainly would.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

I don't think it will be too long until college and university is replaced by schooling/training programs cooperatively run by corporations that hope to utilize the students afterward.

This would obviously be more effective and less costly for everyone.

Doubtful. It isn't profitable for corporations to spend valuable resources providing swaths of U.S. workers with transferable skills and education up-front. It's a speculative assumption that the individual will then come to work for the company instead of going to work for, say, one of company's competitors. It makes much more sense for individuals to invest in their own human capital and evaluate their options through traditional price mechanisms. Unfortunately, government subsidization and investment in higher education has inflated the cost of obtaining an education far beyond what a free market would dicate, so the traditional price mechanisms no longer functioning properly.

[caroljane]

I don't think it will be too long until college and university is replaced by schooling/training programs cooperatively run by corporations that hope to utilize the students afterward.

This would obviously be more effective and less costly for everyone.

Doubtful. It isn't profitable for corporations to spend valuable resources providing swaths of U.S. workers with transferable skills and education up-front. It's a speculative assumption that the individual will then come to work for the company instead of going to work for, say, one of company's competitors. It makes much more sense for individuals to invest in their own human capital and evaluate their options through traditional price mechanisms. Unfortunately, government subsidization and investment in higher education has inflated the cost of obtaining an education far beyond what a free market would dicate, so the traditional price mechanisms no longer functioning properly.

Agree, also given the pace of change in tech and markets, the corporations would garner only graduates trained for "yesterday's workplace".

[Dglgmut]

I don't think it will be too long until college and university is replaced by schooling/training programs cooperatively run by corporations that hope to utilize the students afterward.

This would obviously be more effective and less costly for everyone.

Doubtful. It isn't profitable for corporations to spend valuable resources providing swaths of U.S. workers with transferable skills and education up-front. It's a speculative assumption that the individual will then come to work for the company instead of going to work for, say, one of company's competitors. It makes much more sense for individuals to invest in their own human capital and evaluate their options through traditional price mechanisms. Unfortunately, government subsidization and investment in higher education has inflated the cost of obtaining an education far beyond what a free market would dicate, so the traditional price mechanisms no longer functioning properly.

I don't know. I never said they would educate them for free... maybe they would have a program where if they work for the company their debt payments would be less.

I just think it would reduce the amount of useless information and bad teachers students are exposed to.

[caroljane]

There you go again - trying to put innocent, hardworking bad teachers out of a job!

[Dglgmut]

I know that's how you think.

I don't want them out of a job, I just want them in a job they would be better suited for, and have someone else who may be better suited for teaching in that position.

This teacher is a real beauty. My favourite part is when the one kid interjects: "Did you hear they're calling off Doomsday 2012? They found more of the Mayan calendar."

Students seem a lot smarter than "teachers" sometimes...

[caroljane]

It is nice that somebody knows how I think, because I don't have a clue.

[caroljane]

Having looked further into the truly terrifying costs of post-secondary ed in the US these days, I feel even more fortunate not just for my own education but for my son's (the other one). He chose community college over university and took a student loan of I think, $2000 (may have been more), worked parttime and as he lived at home, basically cost us nothing, which is about what we could have afforded at the time.

He did not choose the most in-demand trade around (radio broadcasting) but he has been self-supporting eversince graduation.

[Brant Gaede]

It is nice that somebody knows how I think, because I don't have a clue.

Ah, but you do think you think. That's one for that side.

--Brant

anybody else?

(cruel me, cruel me)

[caroljane]

Wellyeah, I think that I think, at least I think so, but really, what do I know? I do not have the cognitive confidence of you all, and the evidence of my senses has let me down before.