How else do you propose companies should assess new hires, especially young ones? And while the cost of tuition these days (IMO) outstrips the value of a college education, that’s not to say that value is zero.
1) Programming skills? These are easy to assess with programming exercises. If someone has a degree but can't solve a programming exercise, I won't hire them.
2) Interpersonal skills? But a tech degree doesn't certify those, you need to assess them the hard way anyway.
3) Culture fit? But if you use degrees for that, it's simple discrimination, "let's hire this guy because he's from MIT like us". Not sure why this should be defended.
So in the end, degrees don't seem to help tech hiring in any way. I think tech companies could stop looking at degrees with very little loss.
Yes, all of these skills can be gained and evinced without the traditional 4-yr college route, but I understand why generic Big Corp middle management uses it as a proxy for establishing a baseline in what I, and you've, mentioned.
I can't agree with this, you need to work well with the people you see every day.
That being said, I think the assessment problem is real. I'm the founder of a small startup that very few people want to work for (relative to say, Google) and that means I can assess each candidate in careful/unorthodox (time-consuming) ways. Companies at Google scale have to assess thousands of candidates per month (week?) and they have to do it in a way that ensures they're beyond reproach with regard to discrimination.
Having a college degree means you're statistically more likely to know your stuff, period. Correlation or causation isn't material in this case. There would have to be a very good reason for any big company to start ignoring that reality.
Tricky problem. I'd imagine the only solution involves an actual replacement credential. Like a bar exam, but for "private" disciplines. Maybe Neuralink will sort out how to see if you actually have the necessary understandings in your brain.
but why do you think this? I see this assertion more commonly than I'd expect here and it always to me seems wrapped up in an implicit glamorization of blue collar work & tradesmen without referring back to, say, quality of life, long-term earning potential, flexibility in occupation, etc.