Companies are increasingly dropping four-year college degree requirements for their jobs and putting more emphasis on experience. And that is not just entry-level jobs:
A third of those who dropped degree requirements did so for senior-level roles, a recent survey found.
The survey of HR managers by Intelligent.com found 53% of hiring managers said their company eliminated the requirement for a bachelor's degree for some roles in the past year.
"For so many jobs, it is an arbitrary requirement. And it does eliminate people needlessly who could be great employees," said Stacie Haller, a career coach who worked with Intelligent.com for its report.
[...] What companies are increasingly focused on is experience, with 76% of hiring managers surveyed saying they favor real world skills over education.
Evaluating those skills in real-time is proving successful. The vast majority of companies now test candidates in the interview process, and 66% say they have candidates take an assessment to test hard skills. Sixty-four percent say they have applicants complete a test assignment.
Full survey results and methodology available at Intelligent.com.
Previously: America Needs to Get Over its Reverence for the Bachelor's Degree
« Australian Approval of MDMA and Psilocybin a ‘Baby Step in the Right Direction’ | Until Further Notice, Think Twice Before Using Google to Download Software »
Related Stories
If you ever need to strike up a conversation with a group of academics, a surefire way to get them talking is to ask about their graduate training. Where did they train, in what methods, in which lab, under what mentor? People will speak with great pride about their training as an economist, historian, chemist, philosopher, or classicist. If, on the other hand, you need to make a quick exit, try sharing the opinion that undergraduate education should include a lot more vocational training. You'll soon find yourself standing alone or responding to accusations of classism and questions about your commitment to social and racial equality. You might even hear that "training is for dogs," a common refrain in higher education that carries the unpleasant implication that skills-based education is the equivalent of teaching students to sit, stay, and shake hands.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, in the United States training is widely understood to be the end, not the beginning, of an educational journey that leads to a particular job or career. Undergraduates are supposed to get a general education that will prepare them for training, which they will presumably get once they land a job or go to graduate school. Any training that happens before then just doesn't count.
It is because of this belief that general-education requirements are the center of the bachelor's degree and are concentrated in the first two years of a four-year program. The general-education core is what distinguishes the B.A. from a vocational program and makes it more than "just training." It is designed to ensure that all degree holders graduate with a breadth of knowledge in addition to an in-depth understanding of a particular subject area. Students are exposed to a broad range of disciplines and are pushed to think critically about the social, cultural, and historical context in which they live. It is supposed to guarantee that all graduates can write, have a basic understanding of the scientific method, have heard of the Marshall Plan and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and know that iambic pentameter has something to do with poetry.
While few would challenge the importance of general education, both to students and to a well-functioning democracy, there is good reason to question why it has to come at the beginning of a B.A.—and just how general and theoretical it needs to be. The pyramid structure of the bachelor's degree, which requires that students start with the broad base of general requirements before they specialize, is what makes college unappealing to so many young people.
It doesn't have to be this way. There is no iron law of learning dictating that students must master general theories or be fully versed in a particular historical or cultural context before learning how to do things. Some students will do well under this approach, but there is solid evidence that some students learn better through experience. For these students, theory does not make sense until it is connected to action. Putting a lot of general or theoretical courses on the front end just leaves them disengaged or, even worse, discouraged. They will do better if they start by learning how to master certain tasks or behaviors and then explore the more abstract concepts behind the actions.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday February 08, @10:27AM (22 children)
On the one hand, many HR departments applied arbitrary requirements to their jobs. Aside from unrealistic experience requirements, they often added degree requirements that were unnecessary.
On the other hand, in junior roles at least, a degree (should) guarantee a lower-bound of competence. If you have a CS degree, for example, I can expect you to know what data structures are, how to implement mid-complexity algorithms, etc..
On the gripping hand, many colleges have devalued their degrees - retaining students is more important that guaranteeing that lower-bound of competence.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday February 08, @10:39AM (7 children)
On the gripping hand, many colleges have devalued their degrees - retaining students is more important that guaranteeing that lower-bound of competence.
Many colleges churning out paper degrees are of such low quality all the way through that they should no longer retain accreditation. It appears part of the larger, more general move away in society from knowledge and facts to opinions and talking points.
On top of that, it as you point out, that HR counts a fake degree from an institution incapable of imparting either skills or knowledge with the same value as a degree from a top-rate, internationally renowned degree programme.
That's just in the US. Don't even think of looking at what remains of European institutions post-Bologna Process.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 08, @10:56AM (5 children)
1980s, 6 years spent obtaining two degrees (on scholarship) from a University that informed me, as a teaching assistant, that students are: "paying customers, if they show up to class they at least get a C."
Number of employers who actually read my transcripts: 0.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @03:23PM (2 children)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @04:08PM (1 child)
So a guy from the Philippines that went to Finland to learn how to become a Influencer is starting a Mexican restaurant (tacos?) in Finland. My mind is hurting ...
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday February 08, @10:54PM
Sounds influential to me! :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Wednesday February 08, @04:15PM
That's why you have to do some research about the college before applying. The same thing happens at private highschools where they're being paid for grades that offer entry into more exclusive circles.
Businesses develop relationships with alumni from different colleges and sometimes blacklisted due to too many incompetent hires.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @04:46PM
Not just paying customers, but they rent the shiny apartments that the administration invested heavily in. The "degree" is a loss leader to pull in customers for all the services. Whether anybody learns anything is not even in the top 10.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @04:41PM
(PSSST... top-rate, internationally renowned degree programmes are gamed too. Just look at the rowing team)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @12:33PM (1 child)
I haven't seen much evidence of this.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @04:48PM
A degree does ensure a lower bound of sitting there mute listening to a bunch of bullshit, then saying Yessir on your desk by 9am tomorrow Sir. Which is actually the key skill required in institutional jobs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday February 08, @01:36PM (4 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday February 08, @11:16PM (3 children)
Back in the good old (pre-MBA) days companies saw employees as valued assets, worthy of investing in, training, and keeping. Sadly those days are long gone. Everyone wants someone either very cheap, fresh grad, very low starting wages, or, "hit the ground running" lots of direct experience.
Not sure why everyone thinks they can win at a game where everyone else is doing the same thing in trying to get ahead. Great examples, esp. in California, OR, WA, where major tech. companies had rules about "poaching" and non-compete agreements.
I can see the other side, where companies do invest in people, and the people just up and leave. I've seen that happen up close and personal, and it bugs me.
On both sides the moves are lowering the standards of the game. It's an all-out race to the bottom.
I think a more flexible gig-economy will help, and things like healthcare need to be addressed, then both workers and companies could benefit from a much more flexible work / productivity situation.
Meanwhile...
Dilbert's CEO helps understand the situation [amuniversal.com]
(seriously, it's really good)
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday February 09, @02:36AM (2 children)
Why would you be upset at people leaving? If a company invests in me, they will still drop me like a hot potato if it suits them. They aren't offering pensions, long term income guarantees, or anything else to earn my loyalty.
These companies are reaping what they have sown, and as employees I see no reason for us to do anything other than make them choke on it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Thursday February 09, @03:01AM (1 child)
Yeah, but it brings down the entire society. I'm a big-picture person. Companies rarely learn from these things. Even if they were prone to (ha), they see everyone else doing the wrong things, so they're going to follow suit.
To be a bit more specific, when they see people leaving right after huge money is spent on new training, it discourages them from offering training or tuition help. Again, bringing down the entirety of the dynamic for _everyone_.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Friday February 10, @07:06PM
But you're blaming the victims for not changing their behavior instead of the perpetrator. "If you let him keep beating you, he won't beat other people!" Is not a solution.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday February 08, @04:05PM (4 children)
It's the self-fulfilling prophecy that is HR. Imagine and set arbitrary bounds for other people that they might want to hire. So they have now concluded that a degree isn't a useful requirement anymore for many entry-level-positions. But instead they are just putting up other artificial boundaries such as "experience", that can be almost anything, or they might be moving more towards various pop-psychology testing where you self-evaluate on some scales or try to notice a pattern or filling blanks or whatever they can come up with next. How do those things translate into what you'll be doing at work? Apparently according to the article there is also an emphasis on online courses (boot camp etc) and certificates of this and that or the other.
That said at some olden time getting a degree was rare, it was for a select few positions. Now that everyone or a large chunk of each cohort gets degrees in this and that and everything under the sun they need other criteria to make selections. As a general degree just isn't a suitable selector anymore. When almost everyone has one then it's just not that valuable anymore or it doesn't set you apart.
More important to fill some quota so you don't get hung out as being a racists or bigot.
Real world skills, what are those? Compared to what? The imaginary skills of academia?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @04:57PM
I think there's a subconscious direction that HR (and organisations) are heading in. They want "self-starters" and sycophants who will absorb the Mission Statement and the missives of Directors as their own internal standards. They push reading material on "How To Be Best" and "10 Steps To Success" to brainwash your perfectly adequate brain into thinking someone else, someone higher up, has any answers whatsoever. Then - ideally - you work yourself to the bone while berating yourself for all the failure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday February 09, @02:47AM (2 children)
I know the internet loves to have flame wars on this, but "diversity and inclusion" isn't about lowering standards. It's about removing biases as factors in hiring and promotion, and making sure that everyone in a team doesn't get talked over when they try to contribute. Companies that took the names off of reports / code samples / research found that people that weren't white men tended to have performance that was in line with white men. And if they took reports, code samples, and research and changed the name on it from "Chris Jones" to "Ayesha Jackson" ratings went down, and when they did the reverse ratings went up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09, @03:31AM (1 child)
Did you ever hear of the Streisand Effect [britannica.com]? Or reverse-psychology?
If you actually think these things through, rather than try to cram ideals on a non-ideal situation, you'll realize that you're pissing off a lot of people, and in many cases you're fueling and increasing the racists' hatred. You're even creating racists.
There are far far better ways to try to resolve the problem. Driving a wedge in between the two factions hasn't been working.
Do not punish the good people along with the bad.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Friday February 10, @07:08PM
How is anybody except the white guys with unfair advantages getting punished by making reviews, hiring, and promotions impartial? This has nothing to do with the Streisand Effect - this is a problem that does exist, so calling attention to it and explicitly fighting it is the only moral option.
You can't ignore this problem and hope it will go away - unless you like the status quo and want minorities to keep getting burned by it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stormreaver on Wednesday February 08, @10:26PM (1 child)
In my opinion, degree requirements have always been absurdist bullshit. I remember being 19 or 20 and interviewing for a programming position before I ever enrolled in college. I had been programming since I was 15, writing games, productivity software, and device drivers for 15-16 hours a day for my own purposes (and sometimes just because it was fun). I aced the technical interview and proficiency tests, with the interviewer expressing how impressed he was with my skills. They were ready to offer me the job, provisioned on them approving my college transcripts. Since I hadn't gone to college yet, they rescinded the offer.
I went to college, which taught me nothing of consequence outside of the math I wasn't interested in learning on my own, then started getting hired. In the 23 years since I graduated, I had to derive exactly one equation that required me to use the Algebra I learned in college. I've used my game-making knowledge on multiple occasions (collision detection on data models), but all of that knowledge came from self-study, and is nothing I would have ever learned at college.
Companies are just fucking lazy, and they (and society at large) pay a large price for that in hiring incompetence. They make the easily falsifiable assumption that a college degree implies a certain level of skill. I have found that a college degree usually means jack shit about a person's suitability for a job. I've seen people graduate from CIS/CSC degree programs who couldn't even format a disk, much less determine the intersection of people who were housed together with someone who later tests positive for AIDS (I used to write jail software). That's a skill that I never considered a skill, as it was just a passing requirement for using a computer when I got started.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Monday February 13, @05:12AM
Maybe, but I see it more like college taught me how to solve problems. A candidate's problem solving skills speaks about their suitability.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday February 08, @03:28PM (6 children)
The primary driver of Job opportunities is how badly employers need people, not the quality of any particular applicant. During periods of low unemployment, they even get a little desperate. That's when you see b.s. requirements dropped. That's what's going on right now.
When unemployment is high, they ask for the moon to keep their HR department from being flooded with applicants.
Employers all say they want the best. A big problem is, how do you tell who is the best? Another is, best in what ways? Tend to use subjective and arbitrary criteria. HR departments are suckers for mental shortcuts. For those fortunate enough to not have their resume immediately thrown in the trash, and actually make it to an interview, they put too much stock in such ideas as that the neatness of a job candidate's dress is a very important indicator of how they will do on the job. Maybe, the way you shake hands is the best indicator of character. A firm grip and a hearty shake supposedly shows that you are confident and honest, while a limp and hesitant effort shows that you're no good. I had one interviewer tell me that I didn't make eye contact often enough. And that's when they're actually trying to do somewhat honest evaluations, however junk sciencey.
Sadly, some of the bull is highly discriminatory and unfair. And often, that's on purpose. It's not just racism and sexism. Age discrimination is rampant. Lot of employers want young people because they are not yet wise to the tricks employers play to get more work out of them for cheap, even free. For instance, whatever happened to "9 to 5"? Was there no lunch break? Actually, there was, paid, but only a short one. That got turned into "8 to 5" with an hour lunch break that is off the clock.
There's also financial discrimination. They want employees who are hungry for money, desperate, but not too desperate. Extreme desperation may mean the applicant will try to embezzle. They will look for clues. I read of one interviewer who makes escorting an interviewee to their car seem a gesture of respect and friendliness, but what he really wants is to see the car and what's in it so he can better judge how money hungry the applicant is. For instance, is there a baby seat in the back?
Bashing the universities is part of their junk science bull. Employers are constantly whining that schools don't educate students with what they need, by which they mean, schools don't give what amounts to vocational training in the process or system du jour. If only schools would do more, they wouldn't have to, you know, train employees!
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 08, @05:17PM (5 children)
You can learn a fair bit about someone by looking at what they drive. Is it clean, or full of trash? How well maintained, how new, how expensive? Is it a practical vehicle, a sports or muscle car, or maybe an Escellade with low profile tires?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08, @07:23PM
You'll learn more about a person, if you can find out whether his ride is financed, and the terms he had to accept to get it financed.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday February 08, @07:46PM (2 children)
Yes, but you must be careful not to read too much into that. And you know the average HR weenie is going to do just that. So HR gets a look at a young job applicant's car, and makes all these inferences. What if it turns out the car is actually the applicant's parent's car? Oops.
Junk science is junk, even apart from that trifling misidentification problem. Law enforcement is another group prone to that, and it has lead to many a wrongful conviction. Recently, there was an article on 911 call analysis, in which law enforcers can simply listen to the recording, checking off items on a list to decide whether the caller is honestly reporting an emergency, or is actually the perpetrator who caused the emergency and is now trying to cover themselves. If enough items are checked, then they conclude the latter. They used this crap to conclude that a mother calling about an emergency with her baby instead deliberately murdered her baby.
Just can't make firm conclusions on one look at a car. Without knowing why someone's car is full of trash or spotlessly clean or somewhere in between, conclusions will be highly suspect. Maybe they usually keep their car one way, but there was some event or disturbance that necessitated a temporary, and non-representative change? Another problem is the candidate who is aware of the thinking on cars, and prepares accordingly as far as possible. In that case, HR can be played like a fiddle. Indeed, many candidates who lack the technical skills will resort to appearances to wow the interviewers. It's all they have. And they have more time for that because spending time studying whatever technical skill was wanted would be a waste. This is how HR can filter out all the good candidates and end up choosing between a bunch of lying braggarts whose chief skill is snowing the gullible with bull.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday February 09, @02:18AM
Is 911 call analysis junk science? I don't know, and I'm not taking a defendant advocacy group's word for it. But regardless of the 911 stuff, I think she did it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-jessica-logan-evidence [propublica.org]
"Another critical piece of evidence was an item that police had discovered on Logan’s phone: a Google search for the phrase How do you suffocate. The police report is unclear, and an officer wrote that he found the search in some of the phone records but not others. In court, that officer testified the search took place 19 hours before Jayden died, which he had verified with a subpoena to Google."
"Then there was the life insurance agent who said Logan had called the day after Jayden died to inquire about his policy. The agent found the call suspicious enough to tell police."
And why did she take out life insurance on her 19-month old baby anyway, especially given that she was dirt poor?
I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't heard all the evidence. Also, the standard is and should be "beyond reasonable doubt", not just what probably happened. So, I'm not saying the should have been convicted. But I think she did it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday February 09, @04:05AM
If an applicant knows I want to see a clean, we'll maintained, practical car, and manages to show up with one despite that not being their normal car, I'd count that as a plus. It shows intelligence, awareness, and resourcefulness. There's a chance it's happenstance, but all you can do when interviewing is try to better your odds.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @09:35PM
Isn't there a scene about this in Moneyball? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtumWOsgFXc [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by crafoo on Wednesday February 08, @04:32PM (5 children)
The majority of people in college shouldn't be there and wouldn't have been able to earn a slot 100 years ago. It goes without saying women shouldn't be admitted to college, but most men shouldn't be admitted either. Businesses know these degrees are worthless and so they are testing you now in the interviews.
College degree requirements for employment was a proxy for intelligence filtering that colleges provided. This is no longer the case so they must test you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @05:06PM
Even higher degrees are just a rite of passage for visa seekers these days. The only filter is that you have parents rich enough they can afford you to mooch around unproductively until you're 28. Then you get your visa stamp and a path to... more training!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday February 08, @06:53PM (1 child)
What do reproductive organs have to do with going to college? Maybe you should go without saying such ridiculous statements.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @08:47PM
> What do reproductive organs have to do with going to college?
Or maybe it's the boobies? But boobs come in all sexes, see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/boob [dictionary.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 09, @01:01AM (1 child)
Why should women not go to college? More of us go, and graduate, than men do. Please explain, in thorough and exacting detail including a sound and valid argument, why we don't belong in higher learning :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09, @05:18AM
Uhh, boobies?