Why todays, average jobs, seem to require a PhD?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 7:26 PM GMT
    When I was a working youngster (early 80's), most jobs required a high school ed. The doctor(s) or lawyer(s) are the ones who had a four year degree, a masters degree or even a PhD. Among the science field, its been known for quite a while, in order to be hired at NASA (non contract), for any position, requires a PhD.

    A masters and PhD seem to be the 'norm' these days for your average office worker and or 'white & blue collar', who's job duties haven't changed much at all since I was a teenager. Not only has the job duties not changed, but the rate of pay or wages have stayed the same as well.

    My dad was a police officer in the 1960's, retired now as a lieutenant, my dad took some college courses throughout his career but a particular degree was never required. To 'achieve' the same rank today requires the officer to have a masters degree in criminal justice! These over the top education requirements have infiltrated the military ranks as well. Reading some profiles of those known in todays military you would think they should have been a brain or neurosurgeon. I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions. I would think common sense.

    Who is pushing this, making work and earning a living a "privilege" and not a right? and why? I say "privilege" because 60% of Americans only have a high school education and or cant afford these college requirements. Those that can afford, become debt slaves. Those people 'getting the jobs' are the ones with masters and PhDs that comes with huge debt. What's really disturbing is, when one of these people with BA, MA or PhD is finding themselves working at McDonalds, pushing out the minimum wage, high school or less educated people.

    I understand the need to push education in the US because of other countries competition, but the education requirement needs to fit the job, not the job fits the education requirement. Whoever is doing this (corporate America), has been going about it the wrong way. Its the jobs themselves that need to 'change' to justify the education requirements. Its a kin to 'putting lipstick on a pig' icon_rolleyes.gif

    Give it a fancy title and all of a sudden, the 'education requirements' balloon into the ridiculous, who is mandating job requirements these days? Have "they" lost their minds?

    Its no wonder many people today are sitting on the workforce sidelines, most "nobody qualifies" these days of computer filtered candidates. The, non human "filters" with human input, are discriminating icon_evil.gif



    When I was growing up, this story was kind of a running joke

    The $140,000 Janitors Custodial Engineer
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/24/the-new-york-post-and-the-140000-janitors.html


    When the New York Post recently reported with some disgust that the highest paid janitors in New York City each make more than $140,000, it caught my attention. Typical Post-y puns decried how custodians were “mopping up” and “cleaning us out.” And Harold Levy, a former schools chancellor, was quoted as saying, “The idea that custodians make more than teachers is outrageous.” Yoav Gonen, the reporter who wrote the piece, added not-so-subtle condescension for the profession by putting the official term for the job—custodial engineer—in quotation marks. The story also noted how one top-earning public school’s custodian abused taxpayer dollars by having his subordinates paint his house on the job—if true, an appalling fact that should cost him his job. But most of the writer’s rage was directed at the fact that a few janitors were making a decent living at all.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 7:41 PM GMT
    tuition cost will drive many away from college.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 7:53 PM GMT
    pellaz saidtuition cost will drive many away from college.




    Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem on who is creating these over the top education requirements, and why? icon_confused.gif

    I am sorry, as I already stated, working and earning a living is a fundamental right in this country, not a privilege. The right provides the basic standards for living. Driving an automobile and its care, in a responsible manner, is a privilege, not a right, they teach us all that in drivers education. Why do those in power mix this up?

    Just as health care is, jobs should be available to everyone and the ridiculous education requirements are preventing most Americans from gaining a simple right to work and earn a good living, now why is this? icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 8:26 PM GMT
    Ph.Ds are not getting any jobs. I don't know where you are hearing the rumours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 8:26 PM GMT
    pellaz saidtuition cost will drive many away from college.





    This is where we run into the same ole argument, College is a for profit institution just as the healthcare system is (you know, republican favored crony capitalism)

    If earning a living is a fundamental right in this country, then a higher education should be free, especially because those who are requiring the higher education (thru job descriptions) are the ones who pay people to earn the living

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 8:36 PM GMT
    ricky1987 saidPh.Ds are not getting any jobs. I don't know where you are hearing the rumours.



    Its not about the PhD people, or the MA people, or the BA people, or the AA people, or the GED people


    Its about who or what is creating these ridiculous education requirements when the jobs and their duties never required them before. If I've got the power, I wave my employment magic wand and declare "As of March 2016, all Janitorial duties now require a min of a masters degree", "because i said so"

    As I have already said, whoever or whatever is doing this is going about it all wrong. They are putting lipstick on a pig or trying to push an elephant into a rabbit hole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 8:42 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    ricky1987 saidPh.Ds are not getting any jobs. I don't know where you are hearing the rumours.



    Its not about the PhD people, or the MA people, or the BA people, or the AA people, or the GED people


    Its about who or what is creating these ridiculous education requirements when the jobs and their duties never required them before. If I've got the power, I wave my employment magic wand and declare "As of March 2016, all Janitorial duties now require a min of a masters degree", "because i said so"

    As I have already said, whoever or whatever is doing this is going about it all wrong. They are putting lipstick on a pig or trying to push an elephant into a rabbit hole.


    It is the mindset that more knowledge makes one better at the job so people compete and flash their degrees to employers to hire them. Simple. Of course this does not mean a person with a degree in Latin Music History would make for a better debt collector.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 8:54 PM GMT
    ricky1987 said
    ELNathB said
    ricky1987 saidPh.Ds are not getting any jobs. I don't know where you are hearing the rumours.



    Its not about the PhD people, or the MA people, or the BA people, or the AA people, or the GED people


    Its about who or what is creating these ridiculous education requirements when the jobs and their duties never required them before. If I've got the power, I wave my employment magic wand and declare "As of March 2016, all Janitorial duties now require a min of a masters degree", "because i said so"

    As I have already said, whoever or whatever is doing this is going about it all wrong. They are putting lipstick on a pig or trying to push an elephant into a rabbit hole.


    It is the mindset that more knowledge makes one better at the job so people compete and flash their degrees to employers to hire them. Simple. Of course this does not mean a person with a degree in Latin Music History would make for a better debt collector.




    Since its the employer who makes the requirement, so you are admitting the purpose for the requirement is for the employer's show and self gratification and bragging rights?

    These degrees boost the employers ego and really doesn't contribute to the bottom line? How evil and typically selfish. That is what I have always been puzzled by, an employer will hire someone with a masters in basket weaving and give them a job doing payroll icon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gif



  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14391

    Feb 12, 2016 12:14 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    pellaz saidtuition cost will drive many away from college.




    Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem on who is creating these over the top education requirements, and why? icon_confused.gif

    I am sorry, as I already stated, working and earning a living is a fundamental right in this country, not a privilege. The right provides the basic standards for living. Driving an automobile and its care, in a responsible manner, is a privilege, not a right, they teach us all that in drivers education. Why do those in power mix this up?

    Just as health care is, jobs should be available to everyone and the ridiculous education requirements are preventing most Americans from gaining a simple right to work and earn a good living, now why is this? icon_evil.gif
    To keep the large majority of Americans like myself stuck in low wage jobs and a life of poverty.icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 7:14 AM GMT
    Justme99 saidMy Master's degree is in Psychology.

    That translates into I have an uncanny ability to hone in on people quickly and know their personalities.

    It also helps that I'm highly intelligent, witty, and charming to a fault.

    Today's average jobs don't require a Ph.D. My best friend graduated from MIT with his Master's degree in Computer Science and he makes over $100,000/yr.

    It really depends on the field, educational background, work experience, etc.





    Wow, my 60 year old aunt, who is an Anesthesiologist (since the age of 30) is way under paid @ $175,000 for todays standard (at least a few decades ago, she should be in the $400,000 range now). Although I haven't talked to her in years, I hope she has given herself a raise in the last few decades, she must have at least 32 years experience

    The only thing I remember her saying about this profession is the malpractice insurance premiums she has to carry that severely cuts into her annual salary. She and her family, ex husband an M.D. (and she has 3 boys all went to expensive colleges), can relax in early retirement. I certainly couldn't do what she did, that amount of college (I think it was 8 years total + residency) and dedication. Apparently, this is the highest grossing profession in the medical field, higher than brain surgeon. icon_surprised.gif


    http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Anesthesiologist/Salary
    Anesthesiologists earn, on average, a salary of approximately $300,000 annually, and can expect to earn upwards of $450,000 with experience. Many anesthesiologists receive a bonus in addition to salary, and anesthesiologists working in specific areas such as cardiology or pediatrics are paid at a premium
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 7:28 AM GMT
    I see this happening too; the reasons I see are probably an infinitesimal subset:

    * Nobody wants to be held responsible for hiring someone underqualified if they screw up. Better to post for someone overqualified and claim you couldn't find anyone good enough.

    * Nobody wants to train anyone to do anything. Doesn't matter how much money it saves you or how much it improves your bottom line.

    * A company with these two problems will probably drive away all its senior talent if it hasn't already. The new position may be at entry level, but that person will be expected to replace resources at a higher level (without a corresponding pay raise, of course).

    * It's cheaper to hire a PhD at entry level than it is to hire them for a senior position (same as the previous but in terms of price instead of function)

    * There are enough junk PhDs floating around that in the worst case you hire someone who only ever did BA work but can put "PhD" on their business cards and in their signatures.

    * Big contracts are easier to win with, and may even explictly stipulate, advanced graduate degrees on staff.

    * You might not want your competitors to get the PhD applicants, irrespective of whether you have a use for them yourself.

    * One person with an advanced degree can be used as an excuse not to promote 20 people without.

    ...ad nauseum.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 7:43 AM GMT
    anotherphil saidI see this happening too; the reasons I see are probably an infinitesimal subset:

    * Nobody wants to be held responsible for hiring someone underqualified if they screw up. Better to post for someone overqualified and claim you couldn't find anyone good enough.

    * Nobody wants to train anyone to do anything. Doesn't matter how much money it saves you or how much it improves your bottom line.

    * A company with these two problems will probably drive away all its senior talent if it hasn't already. The new position may be at entry level, but that person will be expected to replace resources at a higher level (without a corresponding pay raise, of course).

    * It's cheaper to hire a PhD at entry level than it is to hire them for a senior position (same as the previous but in terms of price instead of function)

    * There are enough junk PhDs floating around that in the worst case you hire someone who only ever did BA work but can put "PhD" on their business cards and in their signatures.

    * Big contracts are easier to win with, and may even explictly stipulate, advanced graduate degrees on staff.

    * You might not want your competitors to get the PhD applicants, irrespective of whether you have a use for them yourself.

    * One person with an advanced degree can be used as an excuse not to promote 20 people without.

    ...ad nauseum.






    The ad nauseum accounts for 75% of the usual repetitive complaint, "I cant find qualified workers" icon_evil.gif


    Well duh, stop asking for masters and PhD to sweep floors (exaggerated, but this is the whole point about over doing educational needs in the workforce). Just seems like common sense about applying the correct needs has gone out the window in favor of the status symbol, "were #1" thing. I have seen this statement as part of some corporate companies mission statement: "our staff consists of the best of the best, 75% have a masters or higher". Whom is this addressed? Why does this matter to the outside world?

    They cant legally say, "we only hire people with masters degrees", that would sound pompous, and discriminatory, the company "spins" the advantage of hiring such people to weed out fearful people with only a bachelors degree.

    Meanwhile, companies fight over the masters and PhD people, the people with {BA, AA, and GED} sit on the unemployment line. These are the 'unqualified people', corporate America would rather hire H1B visa overseas people with a masters or PhD than any American that is deemed, 'unqualified'


    Insanity icon_rolleyes.gif



  • Fireworkz

    Posts: 606

    Feb 12, 2016 12:57 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    anotherphil saidI see this happening too; the reasons I see are probably an infinitesimal subset:

    * Nobody wants to be held responsible for hiring someone underqualified if they screw up. Better to post for someone overqualified and claim you couldn't find anyone good enough.

    * Nobody wants to train anyone to do anything. Doesn't matter how much money it saves you or how much it improves your bottom line.

    * A company with these two problems will probably drive away all its senior talent if it hasn't already. The new position may be at entry level, but that person will be expected to replace resources at a higher level (without a corresponding pay raise, of course).

    * It's cheaper to hire a PhD at entry level than it is to hire them for a senior position (same as the previous but in terms of price instead of function)

    * There are enough junk PhDs floating around that in the worst case you hire someone who only ever did BA work but can put "PhD" on their business cards and in their signatures.

    * Big contracts are easier to win with, and may even explictly stipulate, advanced graduate degrees on staff.

    * You might not want your competitors to get the PhD applicants, irrespective of whether you have a use for them yourself.

    * One person with an advanced degree can be used as an excuse not to promote 20 people without.

    ...ad nauseum.






    The ad nauseum accounts for 75% of the usual repetitive complaint, "I cant find qualified workers" icon_evil.gif


    Well duh, stop asking for masters and PhD to sweep floors (exaggerated, but this is the whole point about over doing educational needs in the workforce). Just seems like common sense about applying the correct needs has gone out the window in favor of the status symbol, "were #1" thing. I have seen this statement as part of some corporate companies mission statement: "our staff consists of the best of the best, 75% have a masters or higher". Whom is this addressed? Why does this matter to the outside world?

    They cant legally say, "we only hire people with masters degrees", that would sound pompous, and discriminatory, the company "spins" the advantage of hiring such people to weed out fearful people with only a bachelors degree.

    Meanwhile, companies fight over the masters and PhD people, the people with {BA, AA, and GED} sit on the unemployment line. These are the 'unqualified people', corporate America would rather hire H1B visa overseas people with a masters or PhD than any American that is deemed, 'unqualified'


    Insanity icon_rolleyes.gif






    There are more people getting degrees and insufficient job openings and an interest in maintaining a wealth gap. So competition for positions increases.

    I think it is a lot of short term thinking. Companies only care about next quarter's or this year's profits. They don't invest for the future.

    Employers don't want to invest in a skilled workforce and there is a lot of competition for positions. I remember we were considering taking on an intern at a company I worked for but nobody could be bothered to invest the time to train one. I saw some great resumes from some ambitious young people and we didn't want to give them an opportunity. It was a bit sickening.

    We want people qualified and trained but don't want to put anything into helping them get that way.



    People looking for work either need to find something highly specialized and lucrative or get out of the game and set up their own businesses.
    A lot of successful millionaires/billionaires didn't complete college.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 1:24 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem on who is creating these over the top education requirements, and why? icon_confused.gif

    It's also the Human Resources (HR) people and those writing job descriptions.

    Setting the bar high cuts down on the applicant load that they have to process & screen, and select from among. Or to rank and make a recommendation, if the decision power rests with the executive side of the house.

    It's also good insurance that gives CYA if the selectee becomes a failure. There's a strong, objective paper trail that immunizes against personal liability & blame in picking the wrong candidate for the job. It's partly how the entire system works.

    Do you know that for years now larger corporations that experience a flood of applicants use résumé reading and evaluation software? A job description is written, and then your application is scanned and must hit all the key buzz words from the job description. If not, it never even goes for further human evaluation, much less proceed to an interview.

    If the company lacks that degree of automated sophistication then they have HR worker drones, who don't know the first thing about these jobs. All they do is look for the key words to rate the application.

    Additionally, educational credentials are evaluated. The more degrees on the résumé, the more likely it's going on to the next step. Experience can also be a major factor. Now of course I'm describing the process for higher-paying, and professional & technical jobs, not school janitor.

    And for the ultra-high positions, like major corporation VPs and such, there's a separate referral network. It's often THEY who recruit YOU, not the other way around. But I think we're discussing more typical job hunting here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 1:28 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 1:46 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 2:00 PM GMT
    ricky1987 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.


    Tell that to any student that has been flunked out of a course because he challenged a professor and didn't regurgitate the teacher's position. It's nice how you dismiss my assertion but give nothing of value to rebut it.

    And with the cost of higher education you'd be stupid if you didn't think of the economic out comes. I have worked along side people who got the same degree as I had - theirs from Notre Dame mine from a state college. We did the same work and got the same salary. My education cost tens of thousands less than theirs.

    Now I understand why those peoples offices are full of their school memorabilia - they need to broadcast it to the world their "superiority" because otherwise you couldn't tell them from anyone else on staff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 2:26 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    ricky1987 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.


    Tell that to any student that has been flunked out of a course because he challenged a professor and didn't regurgitate the teacher's position. It's nice how you dismiss my assertion but give nothing of value to rebut it.


    I agree with Ricky - I don't know what college you went to, but at mine critical thinking was one of the main focuses in terms of gaining higher marks in essays and if we didn't demonstrate sufficient evidence of it, we would never get beyond a certain grade regardless of the standard of the rest of the work.

    It was both expected, taught and encouraged so although in YOUR experience perhaps your formal education didn't teach or encourage it, that is completely incorrect in my experience and from what I observe of others.
  • Fireworkz

    Posts: 606

    Feb 12, 2016 3:20 PM GMT
    PulseFit said
    UndercoverMan said
    ricky1987 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.


    Tell that to any student that has been flunked out of a course because he challenged a professor and didn't regurgitate the teacher's position. It's nice how you dismiss my assertion but give nothing of value to rebut it.


    I agree with Ricky - I don't know what college you went to, but at mine critical thinking was one of the main focuses in terms of gaining higher marks in essays and if we didn't demonstrate sufficient evidence of it, we would never get beyond a certain grade regardless of the standard of the rest of the work.

    It was both expected, taught and encouraged so although in YOUR experience perhaps your formal education didn't teach or encourage it, that is completely incorrect in my experience and from what I observe of others.


    +1
    I went to a top university.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 3:36 PM GMT
    engineering in electrical, software, mechanical and maybe other fields dont benefit a lot by having a masters or PHD. That is there is no big salary difference during ones engineering career.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2016 4:12 PM GMT
    pellaz saidengineering in electrical, software, mechanical and maybe other fields dont benefit a lot by having a masters or PHD. That is there is no big salary difference through ones engineering career.



    But they do stand to lose a lot by not having one.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't. icon_sad.gif


    EDIT: I don't care enough to join the fray but Ricky, you've got my support too. A *HUGE* part of critical thinking, though, is of course knowing when and where an argument is worth making.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2016 4:11 AM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    ricky1987 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.


    Tell that to any student that has been flunked out of a course because he challenged a professor and didn't regurgitate the teacher's position. It's nice how you dismiss my assertion but give nothing of value to rebut it.

    And with the cost of higher education you'd be stupid if you didn't think of the economic out comes. I have worked along side people who got the same degree as I had - theirs from Notre Dame mine from a state college. We did the same work and got the same salary. My education cost tens of thousands less than theirs.

    Now I understand why those peoples offices are full of their school memorabilia - they need to broadcast it to the world their "superiority" because otherwise you couldn't tell them from anyone else on staff.




    One of my previous employers, they would "discredit" any college they didn't think was 'accredited' (meaning brand name), even in instances of promotion decisions.

    You know, all these on line colleges, ITT Technical and even DeVry University. My uppity previous employer refused to recognize any of these higher learning institutions if any employees went there, through the tuition reimbursement program. The employer would not approve of these, so they would not pay for them, how bogus it that.

    This just tells you, that the employer is not really interested in 'higher learning' for its current or future employees, but in fact is only interested in name recognition for itself and status for everyone who works there. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2016 5:13 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidMy theory is that there are way too many people on the planet now. Compared to thirty years ago, people got some simple on the job training to do their duties and that was that. But now, with so many people competing for the same jobs, employers can put more demands on applicants and force them to jump through more hoops. Not to mention, the whole student loan industry is what America banks on to keep people slaves to their debt. Home ownership, academic degrees...anything that requires you, a bank and your lifelong commitment to be in debt is what America is all about.

    I love being outside and love nature. So I thought about becoming a forest ranger. Decades ago you could become one out of high school. Maybe some on the job training first but that's to be expected. Now? You have to earn a bachelor's degree in "forestry." And then when you get your degree your entry level duties include cleaning public toilets and emptying trash bins at forest sites.

    I have no problem with custodial work. But I'm not going to slave away in college to earn a very limiting degree that is only good for "forestry" only to start off by scrubbing toilets. No thanks!


    I disagree with the first part in red somewhat; there are vast fields of technology going dark, to the alarm of several important but unsexy advisory bodies, because (though they don't realize this is the reason) the requirements for those fields have spiralled *WAY* beyond what is sustainable. If those fields accepted a more diverse talent like they did 20 years ago, their employment ecosystems would be much larger and healthier; the PhDs would *want* to work in those areas, and those without advanced degrees would be able to apply their talents where they could be used. As it is the high requirements are causing the job pool to actively shrink, which in turn causes the requirements to skyrocket further and so on.

    We're in 100% agreement about the debt part though. I hate to say it, but once I've finished paying my loans I actually plan to seriously consider applying in Europe where the same industry is somewhat more diverse (though still affected by the same disturbing trend). It is exactly my student debt keeping me in a dying industry (but one which I love dearly and for which I have sacrificed many opportunities) here. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2016 5:14 AM GMT
    Justme99 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ricky1987 said
    UndercoverMan said
    ELNathB said
    ...I don't think general Patton was required to have double masters degrees in order to make critical thinking decisions...



    Anyone who's been to college (or any school for that matter) knows that formal education does not teach or encourage critical thinking.



    You are wrong. It does encourage critical thinking but it depends more on the faculty than the university itself. The problem is that people no longer go to university for intellectual pursuits anymore. It has become a game of economic outcomes and partying.


    Tell that to any student that has been flunked out of a course because he challenged a professor and didn't regurgitate the teacher's position. It's nice how you dismiss my assertion but give nothing of value to rebut it.

    And with the cost of higher education you'd be stupid if you didn't think of the economic out comes. I have worked along side people who got the same degree as I had - theirs from Notre Dame mine from a state college. We did the same work and got the same salary. My education cost tens of thousands less than theirs.

    Now I understand why those peoples offices are full of their school memorabilia - they need to broadcast it to the world their "superiority" because otherwise you couldn't tell them from anyone else on staff.


    You don't work, or you wouldn't be on here posting.

    My best friend graduated from MIT and he grosses more than 100k/year.

    College isn't a waste of time nor money.

    It depends on the career you pursue & your level of education.

    NOT going to college is a stupid idea because then that same individual will be limited to applying for ONLY jobs that involve a cardboart hat.



    You're posting so you mustn't be working? Everyone posting here isn't working? Neither did I say college was a waste of time or money. Your lack of critical thinking skills is showing.

    Also, I gross more than $100k per year also WITHOUT the MIT degree. If you get a scholarship to a prestigious school great, but if you're going on your own nickel you're better of going somewhere more reasonably priced.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2016 7:04 AM GMT
    anotherphil said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidMy theory is that there are way too many people on the planet now. Compared to thirty years ago, people got some simple on the job training to do their duties and that was that. But now, with so many people competing for the same jobs, employers can put more demands on applicants and force them to jump through more hoops. Not to mention, the whole student loan industry is what America banks on to keep people slaves to their debt. Home ownership, academic degrees...anything that requires you, a bank and your lifelong commitment to be in debt is what America is all about.

    I love being outside and love nature. So I thought about becoming a forest ranger. Decades ago you could become one out of high school. Maybe some on the job training first but that's to be expected. Now? You have to earn a bachelor's degree in "forestry." And then when you get your degree your entry level duties include cleaning public toilets and emptying trash bins at forest sites.

    I have no problem with custodial work. But I'm not going to slave away in college to earn a very limiting degree that is only good for "forestry" only to start off by scrubbing toilets. No thanks!


    I disagree with the first part in red somewhat; there are vast fields of technology going dark, to the alarm of several important but unsexy advisory bodies, because (though they don't realize this is the reason) the requirements for those fields have spiralled *WAY* beyond what is sustainable. If those fields accepted a more diverse talent like they did 20 years ago, their employment ecosystems would be much larger and healthier; the PhDs would *want* to work in those areas, and those without advanced degrees would be able to apply their talents where they could be used. As it is the high requirements are causing the job pool to actively shrink, which in turn causes the requirements to skyrocket further and so on.

    We're in 100% agreement about the debt part though. I hate to say it, but once I've finished paying my loans I actually plan to seriously consider applying in Europe where the same industry is somewhat more diverse (though still affected by the same disturbing trend). It is exactly my student debt keeping me in a dying industry (but one which I love dearly and for which I have sacrificed many opportunities) here. icon_sad.gif




    Part of what he is saying is the specific job DUTIES over the years, have not changed, except for probably computer usage or at least knowledge of how they work due to the information age when it took over business in the mid 1990's. Computers are one "skill" that is a must in most if not all jobs today, from high school, to PhD, that is a given.

    Doctor or lawyer aside, so if the duties themselves have not changed, why has the educational requirement or 'qualification'? Being the older worker here, I can tell you I was one of the first people in my immediate family to go to college 28 years ago. After 25 years in my current profession, I no longer "qualify" for the job duties I have been performing for that last 25 years!

    Some young 20 something twit in HR has no knowledge of the kind of work I perform, is loading the 'hiring software program' that puts in a PhD requirement, and voilà! I am immediately passed over!

    This simple question is what this thread is about. It appears that debt is a 'racket' or Ponzi scheme. If the employer knows you are sitting on hoards of debt, they are more than likely to know you need to work in order to pay off that debt, in a sense, trapping you.

    I assume the same employer logic favors married people with or without children because those people are most likely to be in debt. LGBT people are really the only group that has disposable income, more than likely not to be in debt. The happy medium, to get everyone into debt, is to require these ridiculous education requirements that don't match the job duties.

    Most people have to work in order to live. (it should be a fundamental right) As it gets harder to get work, because of these requirements, many people are not going to be able to live (another devious plot for population control or is this a New type Class Warfare?)