So I'd almost say the opposite: that if you aren't going to do engineering, a degree is definitely worth it, but if you are, it might be more questionable, and depends on what exactly you want to do, and what your outside-out-school credentials are.
So I'd almost say the opposite: that if you aren't going to do engineering, a degree is definitely worth it, but if you are, it might be more questionable, and depends on what exactly you want to do, and what your outside-out-school credentials are.
Software is a rare field in that one can become competent without having a "related" college degree. You can certainly ship products without majoring in CS. On the other hand, I don't think you can build planes or bridges without a degree in aerospace or mechanical engineering.
I think that's exactly the problem. Why should that degree qualify you? It's unrelated! That's what the article and some of the comments are trying to point out: we shouldn't have careers where the college degree is treated like a checkbox instead of being a relevant indicator of your ability in the field in question. What does close examination of Chaucer or Shakespeare have to do with being a secretary? Why would someone who doesn't have a degree in Comparitive Literature make a worse secretary than someone who does? The answer is that it shouldn't.