Ernst and Young drops degree classification threshold for graduate recruitment

> Absolutely you should strive be the type of person who can get into and graduate from an elite school. The value of then actually doing it is what's suspect.

What's more, it might pay off even more to actually be accepted into an elite school, but never start it, and instead carry the letter of acceptance to an employer and get a job.

You are probably right. My intend in pointing out the Thiel Fellowship is that even if you decide to drop out of an undergraduate degree, the chances of doing better without a degree finally is only if you are part of an exclusive/elite group of outliers such as Thiel fellows.

There are always outliers and then there is the general case.

I unfortunately don't remember where I heard this (maybe in the Freakonomics episode "Is college really worth it?" [1]), but 6 years of college clearly beat 6 years of experience.

Also: getting 6 years of relevant work experience is (way) harder if you don't have a college degree in the first place... The famous "you need professional experience to get a job, you need a job to get professional experience".

[1] http://freakonomics.com/2012/07/30/freakonomics-goes-to-coll...

I initially dropped out of university after a year and started to work (went back to university a few years later). The jobs I was offered with 4 years of experience and just a high school diploma sucked in comparison to the jobs I got offered once I had 4 years of university and a degree under my belt.

This is very true of graduate school vs not, but I'm not so sure about undergrad. A few points:

I stopped going to school after undergrad and started working, while most of my friends went and did grad school. When they graduated I was already ahead of the salaries they were being offered and had 5 years of experience. I'd also been earning twice as much as them for those five years and had considerable savings.

Also, I've hired people who never went to college. They were fairly qualified but what I found was odd gaps in their knowledge. They could write good code but then didn't know anything about say bayesian probability, so I would have to design the software for them which they could then code. They could certainly learn about bayesian probability, but the problem was they didn't even know it existed so they were pursuing a terrible solution to the problem that had a well known and simpler solution, until someone who went to college came and informed them. Perhaps the same applies to those who went to grad school, but I've never found that to be the case in practice.

Depends if the jobs you can get offer experience that will take you where you want to go.

In some companies it might be possible to start out in the mail room and end up as the CEO. But if you spend six years in the mail room and you're still in the mail room, you're probably not at that type of company.

People who keep touting the benefits of a college degree keep forgetting the cost of a degree.

">The lifetime earnings for a college degree holder[1] is probably a lot more than for those without a degree."

I'm assuming this statement is true. I, as an American, have heard it forever. If it's true, I don't think it's true just because of the degree.

While I get clobbered for this next statement, I'm tired of dancing around it. A lot of college graduates come from rich families. I have yet to find one rich family who didn't help out their kids in one way, or another. Some pay for Everything. Some, especially, the father, knows first hand just how difficult it is to make real money in America. They help out their kids get through expensive graduate programs, finance that business, co-sign for that first house, the perks can be tiny, like access to the family lawyer--who actually gives honest advice, etc.

The poor and middle class kids usually have caring parents, but no one is helping them out. There's not much guidance growing up--not because the parents don't care; they just don't know. And as to money, most just can't help out.

In my high school, the kids who "made it" had rich parents. Even the ones who went to UC Santa Cruz, and came home with different brains, are doing well right now. I know so many average, below average rich kids, who with family money, just seem to do well. Most don't talk about it, because it's embarrassing, but I've just seen too often to be anything other than external factors(money), and the right guidance.

A perfect example is our California Luitentant governor. He was a few years ahead of me in high school. I watched his family help him out everytime he failed, and he failed a lot. Whether it was his learning disorder, his no direction college/baseball? career, his failed bars, his failed businesses, his legal problems, etc.; his family always helped him out. This dude would have been homeless if not for that powerful family. It's more common than people think. Yes, I used an extreme example because I just watched this guy on some tech channel abusing all the tech lingo, and he's fresh on my mind.

I know HN doesn't like it when we talk about family privilege; why? (Yes--I know their are rich kids who get no help, and made it by way of Horatio Alger's path. You're the exception though.

That's why I have always been for helping out the poor and middle class kids. The help is not enough, but take advantage of what's available. And I know--it's not fair that you have to finance that business through the credit card mafia. Yes, you will watch some of your friends get these cushy positions in life. Don't beat yourself up over it--you probally didn't have much/any help?

If you do make it, try to help the ones who really didn't have the support. No, they won't ask out of , but just give them a shot? They are grateful? If anything don't take advantage of them? I'm not sure some colleges/businesses/professionals don't take advantage of them? Remember--rich kids don't go to schools that advertise?

(Went to rant pretty quick. Sorry--It just seems like we get this college debate too often. If I was to do it over again; Yes, I would go to college. I had a great time, on so many levels. I just might, with these tuition levels, after graduation, build up my credit. I might then start to pay off student loans with cc debt. I would then file chapter 7, and start fresh. It's a glitch that's there, but is hard to pull off. These cc companies still redline, so your access to cash, will vary by county. And there's the morality clause the poor, and middle class are spoon feed--which will prevent this tactic from becomming popular? Think of it as a strategic bankruptcy? Yea, that one the rich do all the time? Do it my the book--don't do anything illegial.)

> I think it's sad that we've reached a point where you're expected to have a four year degree, and $80k of debt in order to get a job as a receptionist or a barista.

(a) They can become a receptionist or barista once they've definitively proved to themselves that they can't get a degree and do something more fulfilling, intellectually stimulating and ultimately likely to lead them to lives with more freedom and time to devote to their own projects.

(b) The 80k debt is a problem with the USA, not nearly so much with developed countries elsewhere. I expect you'd agree with this but it shouldn't be a reason not to go to university; the USA just needs to get away from making people pay so much for their education and healthcare. (The article was about the UK). I work in the USA and I've just got back from traveling in Indonesia for a couple of weeks. It was really sad to see that all the people we met traveling were from Europe and none from the USA: I think a large part of this is that young Americans go into debt for college and think that they can't afford to travel, and thus don't become as familiar with other cultures.

I got out of college 11 years ago without nearly that much debt. I had loans for a little over $16,000 for In-State tuition to a state school. But I just checked, and now it costs over $100,000 for 4 years there. That's insane.

Is an easy way to avoid being called on discriminatory practices.

I think from a strictly economic point of view, a graduate degree is a terrible investment.

Look at it this way - you could spend the 4+ years you spend in grad school working in a high paying job, investing all the difference between grad school stipend and your pay. Once you add all the career progression you can make in the time you spend in grad school - it's obvious that grad school is a net loser, monetarily speaking.

The upside is that, if you pick something that you love, in grad school you get to spend time dedicated to learning and studying something fascinating - and with a good professor, you'll have a pretty fantastic time. In short - do grad school if you are interested in your project, don't do it as a sort of career investment.

Yes, especially if your graduate degree involves skills such as programming and statistics and certain scientific areas which are likely to translate well into industry. One thing that a PhD (and Masters to a lesser extent I guess) tends to give is an appreciation for the depth and volume of work that is out there in the research literature; another thing is the important skill of knowing when you don't understand something. Another thing is math and statistics: rather than being just abstract areas of knowledge in which you can do the homework exercises, after a quantitative graduate degree these become tools you actually have experience of using.

Something that people often miss in these conversations is that there is a very strong networking effect from a graduate degree. Doing a graduate degree will mean that via your supervisor you will meet and probably work with some of the top people in your field. I think you would find it hard to cold-email them to ask for a job if you hadn't been introduced to that network via graduate education.

My Masters in applied math seems to at least somewhat impress people and I feel it has opened up many a door that would have been much harder to get through without it. While I don't know if I get paid more or not, I certainly feel it has let me get involved with far more interesting work.

In certain parts of the country (the Bay Area), that need people with specialized/advanced knowledge in CS (which a Masters would definitely provide), I would expect that your graduate CS degree will definitely give you a leg up on those without one.

If you have an undergraduate degree in a non-CS subject but you get a graduate degree in CS, your will have about the same or better knowledge than a person with a graduate degree in CS.

Of course, there is a great amount of subjectivity given to the School that you attended and your work experience after that.

It increases your worldwide mobility. For example, someone getting a green card (US) gets onto the EB-2 track rather than EB-3, they get 25 points instead of 20 in the education category for Canada, etc.

I don't think a Masters helps that much, but a PHD does, especially in AI.

I wish I could speak for professions such as Medicine or Law, but I can't. I can however speak for an Engineering degree. The following is an example of what a typical CS undergraduate student would study in the US[1]:

● AL - Algorithms and Complexity ● AR - Architecture and Organization ● CN - Computational Science ● DS - Discrete Structures ● GV - Graphics and Visualization ● HCI - Human-Computer Interaction ● IAS - Information Assurance and Security ● IM - Information Management ● IS - Intelligent Systems ● NC - Networking and Communications ● OS - Operating Systems ● PBD - Platform-based Development ● PD - Parallel and Distributed Computing ● PL - Programming Languages ● SDF - Software Development Fundamentals ● SE - Software Engineering ● SF - Systems Fundamentals ● SP - Social Issues and Professional Practice

A typical 4 year undergraduate degree covers 120 credits typically divided among 40 (3 credits each) or more subjects.

In addition to the 18 or so above the rest of the subjects include subjects in primary engineering, mathematics, electronics, mechanics, humanities and several others in addition to all the related practical/lab work.

Most lay people assume that getting a degree in CS means learning HTML, CSS, one or two programming languages and most possibly some CRUD application development with a database backend.

Hence the prevalence of 'boot camps' of various natures that create 'rock stars'.

There is no way in heck that a person who is not forced into the degree track is going to be motivated enough to study all of this stuff. A lot of this is very very hard.

Now, after studying all of this, do you think you will use even a small fraction of this in the types of jobs a typical IT/software consultant would do in 90% of the run of the mill jobs out there. NO. However the degree exposed you to subjects that you would never be exposed to unless you were in that field. And this is only an undergraduate degree.

There is more to a degree that what you can learn by self motivation. At least in the technical space.

[1] Computer Science Curricula 2013; ACM/IEEE Computer Society https://www.acm.org/education/CS2013-final-report.pdf

You don't sound particularly impressed. Despite you're misgivings about the rookies, these firms have effectively rolled the old master & apprentice system forward into the 21st century.

The billing machine you mention is also not quite right. In practice the vast majority of the fees negotiated up front (often on tender basis) & driven by hours only on paper. So effectively the Big 4 firm loses money if there are freeloader rookies on board (revenue stays the same, staff costs go up).

This has been my experience as well at PWC. There are one or two seniors on the team while the rest of the team is staffed with interns/new associates/coop students.

cough IBM cough

If it's a matter of doing what you're told, computers are great for that. Complex problems that require human level intelligence require people who can make localized decisions without being hand held all the way through. The problem of new grads that performed well at university is that they are best at solving narrow, well defined problems. If that's all that E&Y is doing, I question whether they are providing any competitive value.

I got a very high GPA in university, not so much in high school. No scholarships for me :(

Uh huh...http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/21/funding-ref...

It's particularly weak since there is a significant network effect in Les grandes ecoles, having much smaller classes than US-style universities. Not all of the benefits of having been to one are down to the quality of the curriculum,

In any case I think it's foolish to read too much into this. Large corporations try a lot of things, and they don't always work out for the best. If E&Y really finds that it improves the quality of their workforce and their competitors follow suit, it will be interesting, but until then it's just an experiment.

I suspect that, much like the U.S., the French simply have grown accustomed to seeing themselves as having the best education in the world. So when I read comments like this, I just tell myself that this must be what it's like all the time for people in other countries hearing Americans bragging about the U.S.

As for the evidence that one system is better than the other, I think I'll stay out of that one, other than to say that I don't know how you would reliably measure this objectively except by looking at a ranking that attempts capture programs' reputations among employers in the field. Even this will, of course, exhibit some form of national bias, though interestingly the most well-known ranking, U.S. News and World Report ranks many Chinese universities very highly, which might suggest that their national bias isn't too extreme. And then there is the problem of controlling for differences in population, etc.

He's not even talking about an university and rather about a selective public college that only selects few people. Its selection is elitist and surprise, people who come out of it are good + have a good network. I'd say there's a strong selecition bias there.

Depends very much on the course, I think, and the university. I was the only kid from my high school applying to Cambridge, and what prep they gave me was quite misguided, but I don't think it's possible to fake the process (in-person, test with ten hard problems (not requiring any knowledge outside the standard high school course, just more problem-solving ability) where you're not expected to solve more than two or three, then discussing them with your interviewers). I felt like there was some of what you describe with the people I met in humanities courses (of course you can attribute some of that to STEM snobbery), but on the side I saw, once you applied (and sure, I suspect there are people with the ability but without the wealth or connections who are too intimidated to apply), they wanted the best, and I'm sure they got them.

People who join consultancies at the start of their career are normally not doing it because it is a good place to work. Instead, it is a launching point. Experience, money, and the "up or out" management style which means you'll have rapid advancement until you start to stagnate, then you leave on your own personal path. Some will succeed, some will not.

To me, it seems like a path for management-minded individuals that is analogous to doing YC for your startup. Put all your life into it, play the games with the people who have money, most people will wash out early, but a few notables will become wealthy and have a powerful network to continue your career.

To be fair, the workplace quality of these consultancies is really dependant on which country you work in. There are barely any good stories about the U.S. member firms, but I know from experience that they can be a great and rewarding place to work in Europe.

Requiring a degree when the content of the degree is not required for the job is propping up the bubbling education market.

Not to mention that when it comes to accounting and fiscal advice, they're more tax avoidance companies than accounting companies.

Take away the big four, and I wonder if $tech_multinational would dare to play things like the double Irish for some time. Just as an example, have a closer look at EU commission president Juncker's activities in his former job in Luxemburg, and you'll see what I mean.

> Personally, I prefer my doctors ... to have formal qualifications.

Why? So they can charge you more? You know medical school in the US is pass/fail and has a 96% graduation rate? Its completion at that point is practically meaningless.

And all so I have to pay $50 to get a vaccine administered because nobody is allowed to prescribe one without a $250k medical degree.

I think OP was talking about jobs at Instagram for dogpoop of Chihuahua.