Sorry Left AND Right, No Job Requires A College Degree

[edthecynic]

What about it?

I want my doctor to have a degree, just sayin.

They can enter AND graduate from a medical school without one. I know one who did it at Baylor Medical School in Texas. Brilliant and highly competent.

Are you saying he had NO college at all? I know that medical and dental have early admissions to graduate school and accept gifted college juniors. I find it hard to believe this person got accepted into medical school with no college at all. I call bullshit!

 

[Luissa]

What about it?

I want my doctor to have a degree, just sayin.

I want my doctor to be like House.

My doctor has the anti social part down.
Well I should say OBGYN. I meet my new doctor Wednesday, not excited, especially since I am getting a my yearly exam.

 

[Luissa]

I want my doctor to have a degree, just sayin.

They can enter AND graduate from a medical school without one. I know one who did it at Baylor Medical School in Texas. Brilliant and highly competent.

Are you saying he had NO college at all? I know that medical and dental have early admissions to graduate school and accept gifted college juniors. I find it hard to believe this person got accepted into medical school with no college at all. I call bullshit!

My niece is skipping her last year to enter pharmacy school, but she would not have been accepted if she didn't pre reqs. So yeah, I don't see it happening either.

 

[asterism]

They can enter AND graduate from a medical school without one. I know one who did it at Baylor Medical School in Texas. Brilliant and highly competent.

So, isn't medical school higher education?????

the OP said College Degree

not Professional Degree

You're honestly going to say that a Medical Degree is not a college degree?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More from the article:

But is teaching yourself to code sound advice given today's grinding economy? If you believe the headhunters, the national unemployment rate for the technology sector is 5 percent. If you recall, 5 percent unemployment is supposedly "full employment," where everyone who wants a job has one.

5% is somewhat considered "full employment" overall. It is not considered full employment for any given field. If the author had taken an economics course in college perhaps he'd know that.

What makes you think he never took an economics course in college?

I'm editor of both Forbes Opinions and RealClearMarkets.com, plus a senior economic advisor to H.C. Wainwright Economics and Toreador Research & Trading. I have a weekly column on Mondays at Forbes.com.

From the comments.

John Tamny, Fair enough, though in my case my ignorance results from a BA and MBA.

Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[asterism]

From your article:

If I had picked up a degree, I would have missed the entire dot-com boom and graduated during the ensuing recession with no experience carrying a load of debt. Instead, I stayed gainfully employed through all but a month or two of the bust and joined a successful startup as the economy picked up.

The funny part is that it was during the recession following the dot com bust that I founded my first successful company and I still get paid well from it for part time work now. I wouldn't have been able to do that if I had not taken my course of study in college.

Why not? That is not just me snarking, I seriously want to know why you think you wouldn't have been able to do what you did unless you learned what you did in school.

Because without the business courses I took, I would have not been able to be a coder that could also start and run a company. Without the marketing courses I took, I would not have been able to be a coder that programmed the site but was also able to design and run the email, affiliate, google, and overture campaigns. Without the accounting courses I took, I would not have been able to program the financial tracking software to be able to monitor and adjust our offerings to make money.

Sure, I could have hired a team of 4 or 5 experts to do that for me, but then I couldn't have done what I did because none of the experts at the time understood the Internet and while $100K profit in a quarter is good for one person, it's not much for a team of 5.

Why would you option to be an autodidact, and studying the exact same thing, not have produced the same result?

Because I had no idea that marketing was so important for technology types. Most technology types still don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I can see the advantage of formal schooling. For one thing, I wouldn't have wasted time learning things that I later figured out where useless. Then again, I wouldn't have learned about all the interesting trivia either, but I still don't see the value of a degree, especially an advanced one. Most masters, and doctoral, thesis don't really delve into new knowledge, they just rehash old knowledge in a way that stokes the egos of the thesis committee.

I would be a very successful mid-level manager today if I was entirely self-taught. I would have done quite well, and I'd be bitching about my boss. Instead, I get to live a deliberate life as an entrepreneur, worker, and hired gun. The bonus is that I am not limited to technology since I've been running my own company for 11 years. I'm a businessman that understands and communicates technology (another skill I got in college) and that's worthwhile in all industries these days.

(The last sentence is a paraphrase of what a multi doctorate told me, so don't take it out on me.)

You'll get no argument out of me on that. Most advanced degrees in technology are useless, as are most BSCS degrees. But that doesn't mean all college degrees are useless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So that means programmers have a better chance to succeed in a job if they have a degree in the relevant field. You just backed into another good example.

No I didn't.

Is a computer science degree worth the paper it's printed on? | Application Development - InfoWorld

As a "self-taught technologist", I have to say that I wish I had a degree. And if I was younger, or had it to do over again, I definitely pursue one. My son just finished his and his starting salary will be more than I'm making, so there's also still the difference in earning power to consider - even of some employers consider the self-taught 'better hires'.

That difference is statistical, and has more to do with fact that people who get good jobs tend to get degrees than the degrees themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A key indicator from the article:

Our most successful employees have been nontraditional hires. One of my most valuable players has a doctorate in music, got promoted on his first assignment, received wild raves from clients, and now leads large integration projects. I have another fellow who we hired directly from an Apple Store. On his first assignment, he developed the AJAX UI for a multi-billion-dollar financial institution that the client loved.

So this isn't a rant saying that college is useless, it's a rant saying that Computer Science as a major is not worth much.

Case in point, he says a person with a doctorate in music is one of his "most valuable players."

So again, the OP has backed into an example that disproves his point.

No it isn't, it is a rant against the politicians that insist that college degrees in math and science are a matter of national security.

 

[asterism]

More from the article:

But is teaching yourself to code sound advice given today's grinding economy? If you believe the headhunters, the national unemployment rate for the technology sector is 5 percent. If you recall, 5 percent unemployment is supposedly "full employment," where everyone who wants a job has one.

5% is somewhat considered "full employment" overall. It is not considered full employment for any given field. If the author had taken an economics course in college perhaps he'd know that.

What makes you think he never took an economics course in college?

Because he incorrectly used the context of full employment.

"Full employment" is a rate that spans all manners of work, it is not something that can be applied to individual fields. During the dot com boom, the full employment rate for systems administrators was actually negative.

I'm editor of both Forbes Opinions and RealClearMarkets.com, plus a senior economic advisor to H.C. Wainwright Economics and Toreador Research & Trading. I have a weekly column on Mondays at Forbes.com.

From the comments.

John Tamny, Fair enough, though in my case my ignorance results from a BA and MBA.

Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions.

Well then he didn't pay attention in his classes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But your argument was that rocket scientists didn't need degrees because solving for derivatives was done by computer programs. So those programmers need to know how to solve for derivatives to write those programs yes?

And it doesn't matter who you know. What matters is whether a college degree in a field increases the chance for success and in programming there is a direct correlation. I have never required degrees for programmers I've hired over the years, but most of the ones that have done well did have college degrees.

How many programmers that made over $100K in actual earnings annually by the time they were 30 did so without a college degree?

Bill gates
Mark Zuckerman
Steve Jobs

Get the picture?

Yes.

Now how many of them do you know?

3 out of over a million is a very low success rate. Someone who took a college level statistics class would know that.

The only people I know that make that kind of money are farmers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I want my doctor to have a degree, just sayin.

I want my doctor to be like House.

Who also had college degrees.

The man couldn't get a job at any hospital in this country, so you cannot tell me he has a degree because he works for a hospital on TV.

 

[asterism]

A key indicator from the article:

Our most successful employees have been nontraditional hires. One of my most valuable players has a doctorate in music, got promoted on his first assignment, received wild raves from clients, and now leads large integration projects. I have another fellow who we hired directly from an Apple Store. On his first assignment, he developed the AJAX UI for a multi-billion-dollar financial institution that the client loved.

So this isn't a rant saying that college is useless, it's a rant saying that Computer Science as a major is not worth much.

Case in point, he says a person with a doctorate in music is one of his "most valuable players."

So again, the OP has backed into an example that disproves his point.

No it isn't, it is a rant against the politicians that insist that college degrees in math and science are a matter of national security.

It is. There are some non-college educated bright stars, but most of the people who are really good at weapons guidance systems have studied the various subjects in college.


When you have to fill 5 seats and the performance of those seats directly impacts your earnings you'll understand this. Generally, those who went to college are going to be better at the job you need done in those fields.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From your article:

The funny part is that it was during the recession following the dot com bust that I founded my first successful company and I still get paid well from it for part time work now. I wouldn't have been able to do that if I had not taken my course of study in college.

Why not? That is not just me snarking, I seriously want to know why you think you wouldn't have been able to do what you did unless you learned what you did in school.

Because without the business courses I took, I would have not been able to be a coder that could also start and run a company. Without the marketing courses I took, I would not have been able to be a coder that programmed the site but was also able to design and run the email, affiliate, google, and overture campaigns. Without the accounting courses I took, I would not have been able to program the financial tracking software to be able to monitor and adjust our offerings to make money.

Sure, I could have hired a team of 4 or 5 experts to do that for me, but then I couldn't have done what I did because none of the experts at the time understood the Internet and while $100K profit in a quarter is good for one person, it's not much for a team of 5.



Because I had no idea that marketing was so important for technology types. Most technology types still don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I can see the advantage of formal schooling. For one thing, I wouldn't have wasted time learning things that I later figured out where useless. Then again, I wouldn't have learned about all the interesting trivia either, but I still don't see the value of a degree, especially an advanced one. Most masters, and doctoral, thesis don't really delve into new knowledge, they just rehash old knowledge in a way that stokes the egos of the thesis committee.

I would be a very successful mid-level manager today if I was entirely self-taught. I would have done quite well, and I'd be bitching about my boss. Instead, I get to live a deliberate life as an entrepreneur, worker, and hired gun. The bonus is that I am not limited to technology since I've been running my own company for 11 years. I'm a businessman that understands and communicates technology (another skill I got in college) and that's worthwhile in all industries these days.

(The last sentence is a paraphrase of what a multi doctorate told me, so don't take it out on me.)

You'll get no argument out of me on that. Most advanced degrees in technology are useless, as are most BSCS degrees. But that doesn't mean all college degrees are useless.

You could could have done what Zuckerman did.

All that marketing stuff is great, but if your real talent is coding all the marketing does is take you away from what really makes you money.

 

[asterism]

Why not? That is not just me snarking, I seriously want to know why you think you wouldn't have been able to do what you did unless you learned what you did in school.

Because without the business courses I took, I would have not been able to be a coder that could also start and run a company. Without the marketing courses I took, I would not have been able to be a coder that programmed the site but was also able to design and run the email, affiliate, google, and overture campaigns. Without the accounting courses I took, I would not have been able to program the financial tracking software to be able to monitor and adjust our offerings to make money.

Sure, I could have hired a team of 4 or 5 experts to do that for me, but then I couldn't have done what I did because none of the experts at the time understood the Internet and while $100K profit in a quarter is good for one person, it's not much for a team of 5.



Because I had no idea that marketing was so important for technology types. Most technology types still don't get it.



I would be a very successful mid-level manager today if I was entirely self-taught. I would have done quite well, and I'd be bitching about my boss. Instead, I get to live a deliberate life as an entrepreneur, worker, and hired gun. The bonus is that I am not limited to technology since I've been running my own company for 11 years. I'm a businessman that understands and communicates technology (another skill I got in college) and that's worthwhile in all industries these days.

(The last sentence is a paraphrase of what a multi doctorate told me, so don't take it out on me.)

You'll get no argument out of me on that. Most advanced degrees in technology are useless, as are most BSCS degrees. But that doesn't mean all college degrees are useless.

You could could have done what Zuckerman did.

All that marketing stuff is great, but if your real talent is coding all the marketing does is take you away from what really makes you money.

You've got that exactly backwards.

If you can't sell it the tightest code on the planet is worth ZERO, while mediocre code that is functional is worth millions if it's marketed correctly.

How old are you? I'm 43.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More from the article:

5% is somewhat considered "full employment" overall. It is not considered full employment for any given field. If the author had taken an economics course in college perhaps he'd know that.

What makes you think he never took an economics course in college?

Because he incorrectly used the context of full employment.

"Full employment" is a rate that spans all manners of work, it is not something that can be applied to individual fields. During the dot com boom, the full employment rate for systems administrators was actually negative.

From the comments.

John Tamny, Fair enough, though in my case my ignorance results from a BA and MBA.

Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions.

Well then he didn't pay attention in his classes.

Bingo.

Or maybe he forgot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A key indicator from the article:

So this isn't a rant saying that college is useless, it's a rant saying that Computer Science as a major is not worth much.

Case in point, he says a person with a doctorate in music is one of his "most valuable players."

So again, the OP has backed into an example that disproves his point.

No it isn't, it is a rant against the politicians that insist that college degrees in math and science are a matter of national security.

It is. There are some non-college educated bright stars, but most of the people who are really good at weapons guidance systems have studied the various subjects in college.


When you have to fill 5 seats and the performance of those seats directly impacts your earnings you'll understand this. Generally, those who went to college are going to be better at the job you need done in those fields.

I understand it, I just also recognize that it is entirely possible to apply skills from one thing to something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because without the business courses I took, I would have not been able to be a coder that could also start and run a company. Without the marketing courses I took, I would not have been able to be a coder that programmed the site but was also able to design and run the email, affiliate, google, and overture campaigns. Without the accounting courses I took, I would not have been able to program the financial tracking software to be able to monitor and adjust our offerings to make money.

Sure, I could have hired a team of 4 or 5 experts to do that for me, but then I couldn't have done what I did because none of the experts at the time understood the Internet and while $100K profit in a quarter is good for one person, it's not much for a team of 5.



Because I had no idea that marketing was so important for technology types. Most technology types still don't get it.



I would be a very successful mid-level manager today if I was entirely self-taught. I would have done quite well, and I'd be bitching about my boss. Instead, I get to live a deliberate life as an entrepreneur, worker, and hired gun. The bonus is that I am not limited to technology since I've been running my own company for 11 years. I'm a businessman that understands and communicates technology (another skill I got in college) and that's worthwhile in all industries these days.



You'll get no argument out of me on that. Most advanced degrees in technology are useless, as are most BSCS degrees. But that doesn't mean all college degrees are useless.

You could could have done what Zuckerman did.

All that marketing stuff is great, but if your real talent is coding all the marketing does is take you away from what really makes you money.

You've got that exactly backwards.

If you can't sell it the tightest code on the planet is worth ZERO, while mediocre code that is functional is worth millions if it's marketed correctly.

How old are you? I'm 43.

I am old enough to have changed your diapers.

Technically, I am old enough to be your father.

Gates marketed his first sale with a single phone call.

Zuckerman didn't market Facebook until after it was worth millions.

Then we have the fact that Excite, remember them, turned down a chance to buy Google for a fraction of what is was worth.

I guess that means that I am old enough to know that every rule has an exception.

 

[asterism]

You could could have done what Zuckerman did.

All that marketing stuff is great, but if your real talent is coding all the marketing does is take you away from what really makes you money.

You've got that exactly backwards.

If you can't sell it the tightest code on the planet is worth ZERO, while mediocre code that is functional is worth millions if it's marketed correctly.

How old are you? I'm 43.

I am old enough to have changed your diapers.

Technically, I am old enough to be your father.

Gates marketed his first sale with a single phone call.

Zuckerman didn't market Facebook until after it was worth millions.

Then we have the fact that Excite, remember them, turned down a chance to buy Google for a fraction of what is was worth.

I guess that means that I am old enough to know that every rule has an exception.

You're citing exceptions to the rule.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You've got that exactly backwards.

If you can't sell it the tightest code on the planet is worth ZERO, while mediocre code that is functional is worth millions if it's marketed correctly.

How old are you? I'm 43.

I am old enough to have changed your diapers.

Technically, I am old enough to be your father.

Gates marketed his first sale with a single phone call.

Zuckerman didn't market Facebook until after it was worth millions.

Then we have the fact that Excite, remember them, turned down a chance to buy Google for a fraction of what is was worth.

I guess that means that I am old enough to know that every rule has an exception.

You're citing exceptions to the rule.

Which proves the rule is not the be all and end all that you just said it is.

I can point out exceptions to the rule all day long because the simple fact is it isn't really a rule, it is simply the status quo.

"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." - Ralph Waldo Emerson