racist attitude
Did this mean they personally hardored a racist viewpoint, or somehow affirmed policies that separated opportunities based on races? Or they denied that racism exists?
Do you think the institution supported their viewpoints, or they were the outlier among more enlightened people? Would they have been fired if they would have been less subtle about it?
I think you comments are well said.
Do you have any examples of
...various racist arguments...
From a university, paper, or article where that was being taught? Or are you talking just generally not allowing that as an acceptable view view.
Did you experience these in your higher education?
Indeed.
In 1960, the Aral Sea had been the world's fourth-largest lake with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,000 sq mi) and a volume of 1,100 km3 (260 cu mi). By 1998, it had dropped to 28,687 km2 (11,076 sq mi) and eighth largest. - Wikipedia
It is interesting to think about if that's more economic, and maintains the same quality of work overall.
I was lucky when I started and people took chances on me. In return I take chances on people I think could have great potential.
We have something in common here.
While posting code on GitHub is slightly dev specific, I think the principles you've shared likely goes across a lot of industry. If people show initiative, are life long learners, they'll probably land something, with or without a degree.
Obviously, there's a lot of 'it depends on the person' in this topic. At least in my mind. I think you're right in that both things (degree/camp) create good and bad results.
I get a lot of dumb looks, and wrong answers.
Do you have any experience hiring a person who passed that test, who wasn't a degree holder?
Do you have any experiences where someone failed that test, wasn't a degree holder, and you hired them anyway?
Do you feel you could put a ratio to it in your field/employer?
Training people is expensive in both cash for the business and the time of those around them
You're definitely supported by an enormous amount of evidence in this.
In my current job, we have a small group of employees with specialties in sciences, medical, hazardous materials, IT, threat/plume modeling, and running daily activities. They go to so much training in their first two years, they're gone all the time, and then they are still almost worthless for another year due to lack of real-world knowledge they couldn't get from these special schools.
When we hire the wrong people, it's a huge problem in costs, lost time, and then it makes finding replacements that much harder and shorts the organization longer as well.
Finding the right people who are a good fit is hard.
many of these roles could be accomplished by people who have non university qualifications or 4-5 year apprenticeships. But it’s hard to teach the background maths involved during an apprenticeship
This was a very interesting example. Personally, I don't use any of the higher math that degree programs wanted. For people in the field you're talking about, it would be needed. So in that sense, a dev working for one company would be fine, until they wanted to dev for a company that needs those maths.
I counter my own point though and say that most people who don't use those higher level maths forget it. I am a very good use or lose example.
@cole@cole@lemdro.id I agree there can be separation of role types. This is annoyingly inconsistent across industry. Lead/architect/principle/engineer terms get thrown around for all kinds of roles. Sometimes companies just use them as title changes for promotion and talent retention. It would be nice if companies considered adapting a standardize framework for some uniformity. The NICE model comes to mind, but I've had people tell me they think it's too academic and not pragmatic in the real word. I don't think I agree with them.
Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce
I'm not disagreeing with you. I would submit that this is already true for other reasons. Speaking specifically of IT or INFOSEC fields, companies currently have extremely high expectations or experience requirements/desires.
This has been a problem for the INFOSEC field where there's a shortage, but companies don't want to hire entry level candidates with little to no experience. They want reasoned, veteran INFOSEC practitioners, which there isn't enough of.
generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans
Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans
I like that you both brought this up. There's a real life example of this in the US military. It's a well known benefit/incentive for military service that they would fund your college education if you work for them long enough. You signed your service contract, but if you met that, you got your education for 'free' if you want to call it that. It's a little different in you might be killed in a stupid political war along the way, but it shows that the idea is practical and can work.
I guess if I had the choice of being hired at a really decent company and they would fund some highly sought after training as long as I gave them a reasonable number or years of employment with reasonable compensation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
On the other had, the SyFi fan that I am, I could see a bit of a dystopian future where you have to belong to companies for a while to start off in life. If you consider that people now start off in massive student loan dept, the dystopian ownership is currently banks while people take up to 20+ years to repay student loans.
You know, when the concept of publicly funded education was proposed, it was considered revolutionary and not well supported by some, who didn't like the idea of the costs.
We currently have K-12 in US that's publicly funded education. This idea would essentially just make that K-16.
This video regarding education has always been one of my favorites: https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms
Of course, this is a very accurate and a good point.
When we look at companies who are trying to actually innovate something new/cool and not just produce a product that serves a known or well defined problem, it does seem that they'll do a lot of hit and miss.
It's interesting to contrast that to a company like Microsoft, where they also need to meet their Invester focused/bottom line oriented mandatory growth requirements ( which I don't like the American corporate shift in this way), their way of doing so in the computing world was to buy up everything/one and take steps a lot of people considered anti-trust/monopoly moves.
Ha.
There's a bank in China that avoided total pownership because they are running novell.
Mostly because the malware wasn't expecting it. who would?