redfox

@[email protected]

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@[email protected] 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.

@[email protected]

generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans

@[email protected]

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.

Schmidt and Hunter, 1998

For anyone who's interested, there's a copy of the study here: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf

😀 haven't we all. I'd change my thought to: maybe for apple cars were a 'bridge too far' 😉

I'm my head, I was thinking of all those consumer products (phones, pods, pads, earbuds, etc). That is a good reminder they started with business computers.

In technology, what about software for an aircraft written and tested by skilled developers, but ones without degrees?

require skills

Does this mean skills learn on the job or from a higher education institution?

Would people accept a highrise Disney by a team of self taught engineers?

Would we allow a surgeon to practice without a medical degree?

What about if that surgeon went to a vocational school and then did the normal years of internship, fellowship, supervision, etc?

general business

Concepts of standard American businesses,. communication, business processes, professional presentation, product production life cycles, business man/women stuff

@[email protected] 180 days

This is an interesting observation.

In theory, the section/department manager should be providing those requirements to HR, not allowing HR to do it for them, right? I have to agree, if companies are letting HR drive the requirements train, it's going to be a poor experience for everyone.