Aye, you aren’t wrong, that’s my whole point though, in the end, it’s just one entity vouching for the other. While school can have some standardization I’ve met enough people from schools with paper in hand that I would never have thought competent enough to weild that paper. So why is this one entity have so much more sway than others? I’m simply saying all the options should be considered and not hard locked off because that paper doesn’t exist.
For instance, I have an older family member who’s an OG senior program engineer with a resume that is just astoundingly impressive. No doubt most people who’ve had a computer would recognize their work. Like, sincerely impressive. They struggled to find a job for 4-5 years because they lacked a programming degree.
I don’t disagree with degrees as a method, I disagree with using them as a universal, only way method. I, myself, am not a degree weilding graduate but I did work my way up through sheer knowledge. It was a heck of a struggle that took a long, long time. I feel others should be able to do what I did with lower thresholds to jobs if they know their work. Trial periods, internships, contract work, and job competency testing should be reasonable options when hiring, regardless of what entity backs them.
Yeah I actually work in a dev team where about half of us picked up programming outside of college. That includes our boss, who’s also the most technically proficient in my opinion. He went through a Microsoft-certified boot camp instead. Some of my uncles are engineers that had college paid for by their company, since they were already shown to be valuable workers without it.
I get the appeal of being able to just look for a candidate’s school instead of doing more heavy-lifting when evaluating a candidate, but the growing over-reliance is to everyone’s detriment. Companies will be missing out on some real talent, and qualified applicants have trouble getting the opportunity to prove themselves.
Aye, you aren’t wrong, that’s my whole point though, in the end, it’s just one entity vouching for the other. While school can have some standardization I’ve met enough people from schools with paper in hand that I would never have thought competent enough to weild that paper. So why is this one entity have so much more sway than others? I’m simply saying all the options should be considered and not hard locked off because that paper doesn’t exist.
For instance, I have an older family member who’s an OG senior program engineer with a resume that is just astoundingly impressive. No doubt most people who’ve had a computer would recognize their work. Like, sincerely impressive. They struggled to find a job for 4-5 years because they lacked a programming degree.
I don’t disagree with degrees as a method, I disagree with using them as a universal, only way method. I, myself, am not a degree weilding graduate but I did work my way up through sheer knowledge. It was a heck of a struggle that took a long, long time. I feel others should be able to do what I did with lower thresholds to jobs if they know their work. Trial periods, internships, contract work, and job competency testing should be reasonable options when hiring, regardless of what entity backs them.
Yeah I actually work in a dev team where about half of us picked up programming outside of college. That includes our boss, who’s also the most technically proficient in my opinion. He went through a Microsoft-certified boot camp instead. Some of my uncles are engineers that had college paid for by their company, since they were already shown to be valuable workers without it.
I get the appeal of being able to just look for a candidate’s school instead of doing more heavy-lifting when evaluating a candidate, but the growing over-reliance is to everyone’s detriment. Companies will be missing out on some real talent, and qualified applicants have trouble getting the opportunity to prove themselves.