But for a society that acts like everyone’s worth is wrapped up in whether or not you have a degree, we should be a lot more concerned about this than we are.
But for a society that acts like everyone’s worth is wrapped up in whether or not you have a degree, we should be a lot more concerned about this than we are.
It's a hard requirement a lot of the time in tech as well. Doesn't matter anymore whether you have 10+ years experience at a large company in <very fancy subfield that requires at least grad school level expertise in something very academic> like compilers or something. You'll be viewed as a neanderthal that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus.
In the past, that was less of an issue. A culture of self study (on prerequisite academic topics) was more prevalent. Now the base assumption is that you stumbled into your position and have been flying under the radar as a dimwit changing the color of buttons.
Theories as to why this is now the case:
- Increased competition and rise of CS enrollment and improved perception of CS degrees.
- Bootcamp grads giving recruiters and hiring managers a bad impression about everyone self taught.
- Overhiring in certain subfields and at certain large tech companies causing a reduction in the signaling value of experience.
- Age discrimination
So in other words, with the exception of physical trades, credential inflation is definitely a real thing and it definitely has an impact on how easily you can move positions and/or negotiate compensation.
And if you couldn't tell, yes I'm salty on account of having had to waste time and money going back to finish a degree that I was overqualified for just in order to not immediately get lumped in with bootcamp grads. The entire ordeal was academically worthless. Don't make my mistake kids...stay in school even if it feels like you aren't learning anything so that you don't have to go back and do it while also juggling adult responsibilities. I think this is a mistake that men are probably more likely to make than women as well, which could help explain some of the gender discrepancy in graduation rates. Call it overconfidence fueled by testosterone or something.
Funny you say this 1.5 months after I find out that the university where I got my master's dropped calculus classes (from the bachelor subjects, there never was much non-applied math in the master years). Logic (mathematical logic), discrete math, combinatorics and theoretical statistics have been dropped years past (more than a decade for logic). Applied statistics and "Math I + II" (essentially revision of high school calculus, practical only, no theory, e.g. no more treatment of the difference between Riemann and Newtonian integration) are all the math that's left.
Master degree holders starting 4 years from now will all be "neanderthals that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus". Or at least know little of the theoretical underpinnings of calculus.
As they say, ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I've always seen "or equivalent experience". I'd assumed that including that alternative was mandatory-ish for the same reason that explicit intelligence tests are reportedly lawsuit magnets.
However, when I say it's often a hard requirement, I do mean that literally. The "or equivalent experience" bit isn't there a significant percentage of the time for the sorts of jobs I typically apply for (nothing that has actual regulatory reasons to require a license or degree). Then you wind up with the person that was trying to hire you having to petition up to the division executive for an exemption to company policy or something ridiculous like that. If you aren't really really good, that's often a dealbreaker. I suspect I lost out on many opportunities that way because I can only really evaluate the instances where they tell you about the petition and then tell you it went well (if it went poorly, might as well tell you "we decided to go with another candidate" or just not tell you about the policy).
Additionally, sometimes the lack of strict degree requirement doesn't mean a lack of paperwork that could be prohibitive. Or they'll say something like "every three years of professional experience will make up for one year less of education", which besides being a silly ratio, is essentially a prohibition on hiring people without a degree because I'm not about to accept a very underleveled offer due to how they arbitrarily weight years of education vs years of professional experience. I've been desperate before but never that desperate thank goodness.
As far as being a legal standard, I'm not aware of and have probably never lived in an area where an "or equivalent experience" statement was actually required, on account of it being missing for maybe ~50% or so of the jobs I've applied to or been hired for. If companies are being sued and losing over the lack of that statement, absent other evidence of discrimination based on applicant membership in a protected class, that would be news to me.
I’m with you on the moral argument. My dad was a master carpenter and is one of the smartest people I know. And his work will be around long after mine has become obsolete.
Citations:
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472111.htm
Plumber - median $61,550 per year
HVAC tech - median $57,300 per year
Electrician - median $61,590 per year
Framer(Carpenter) - median $56,350 per year
Bricklayer(Mason) - median $53,010 per year
Job demand also seems to be about average compared to overall jobs.I agree that investing heavily in many degrees is probably ill-advised.
You can see what union trades make in a specific area by searching for “prevailing wage [city name]” and looking at the wage tables.
or are these full-timers.
I'm sure they're almost certainly the former, and that 77/hr doesn't look so amazing after taxes and other overheads. I'd bet that gets down closer to 40/hr actual spending money, and that's not as amazing around big cities like DC, NYC, or SF.
Journeyman electricians get $53/hr wage in Mpls/St Paul, total package is around $100/hr (includes health insurance, defined benefit pension, employer FICA, unemployment insurance, union dues, apprentice program funding, vacation pay, etc) Foreman get an extra $5 an hour and a general foreman gets another $5 on top of that.
NYC and SF electricians get around $70-75/hr wage, DC is around $65/hr.
Trade unions are so hard up for new members that they’ll educate you while you’re an apprentice, so after 5 years you’re a journeyman with no education debt making $100k+ a year. It takes a while for a college educated person making $100k/year to catch up to the electrician in lifetime earnings.
If you’re a non-union residential electrician in say, Alabama or Kentucky, you’ll probably make $60k a year. If you’re a commercial union mechanical or electrical tradesperson in a decent sized metro area, you’ll make significantly more.
From the linked BLS report:
>These estimates are calculated with data collected from employers in all industry sectors in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in every state and the District of Columbia.
I'd take country wide figures from government agencies over haphazardly doing your own research for a few cities on google.
I think the silver-lining here is: be competent at your job and all aspects related to it, but do that while being your own boss.
Not much different from other areas but in this case, trades are in high demand and the initial investment in terms of capital is very little compared to "start a company and hope to break even in an year or two".
So you're prone to falling into survival bias, while also needing skills beyond just being good at your job in order to sell yourself so you can get customers to begin with.
>the initial investment in terms of capital is very little compared to "start a company and hope to break even in an year or two".
2-3 years of apprenticeship is "very little"? In addition to however much experience you need to be trusted as a business? And who's to say you will break even in a year or two?
Seems plausible. If you click around you find the report explicitly excludes self-employed workers.
>Self-employed persons are not included in the survey or estimates.
Probably because they are entirely different jobs. The “tradesmen” making the big bucks are actually business owners, who are hiring others to clean the toilets and wire circuit breakers. This makes them more like CEOs than individual plumbers. It would not make sense to lump their salaries with employed trade workers.
The last plumber I hired was two brothers, who do good work, charge like $100+/hr on labor, but are considered self employed and thus don't show up in that dataset.
And I’d bet their rate even has to take into account the time in their “off” hours when they are writing estimates, invoicing, communicating with clients, marketing, and so forth.
They don’t just clock out when they finish fixing your plumbing. Even at $100 each, it’s not pure profit. Running the business probably eats into a big chunk of their hourly rate.
But regardless of career path, the real trick is to raise your children to aim higher than median. :)
You don't want to be a plumber, you want to run a plumbing empire!
They aren't useless, but as tuition rises it is inevitably going to be a worse investment. Not to the point where trades are worth its equally annoying but different kind of annoyance, though. Pay depends on unions, and get into trade unions is anything but a meritocracy.
If you actually use specific things you learned, it's useful in the way that training and certification is useful.
If you don't, it's mostly just an indicator of "this person is at least this smart". Which only really matters to the extent that employers use it to save time on interviews.
One of ways that I've seen middle-aged people succeed in the trades is to hire a crew and turn it into a business. But by definition, not everyone can be the boss.
It can be a great career if you stay healthy! But I think we should be careful about answering every employment or education question by immediately saying "trades."
Young women are doing worse than their male peers in rural areas economically. This gap is closing.
What implications this has for society at large I can only speculate.
Thats only sixteen percent of women. Or put another way, 84% of men still make more than women.
> Younger women in urban/metro areas are doing significantly better than their male peers economically (higher employment rates and income). This gap is increasing.
In 22 metro areas.
You’re framing your argument in a way that seems especially combative and antagonistic towards women gaining a level playing field. It’s not a zero sum game, but men will absolutely lose privilege as women even the playing field. There will be cases where women make more, and that’s life. And if women as a whole for a while make more than men, big deal, it’ll eventually even out.
Also, can you pay student loans with pre tax income?
I've worked with many talented engineers over the years who didn't have degrees and have had no trouble finding jobs and moving around. I imagine a degree might help you get a foot in the door, but once you can demonstrate you can do the job, seems to be easy to pick up more work.
I really wonder how damaging that debt would be for a young person who is also trying to save for a house and start a family.
If you go to a private school, or a public school in a state you don't live in, you can easily double or triple those costs, but there are routes for bright students to study at excellent schools for pretty low cost.
For example, many top private schools have tuition+board costs upwards of $90k/yr, now— yet if you (or your parents) bring in less than $100k-$200k/yr (again, depends on the school), tuition is completely free, with a sliding scale on incomes based above that threshold. Stanford does not even publish their total cost for a degree any more so much as a matrix to provide a ballpark estimate.
State schools often provide massive discounts for their tax-paying residents to attend. In California, that could be the difference between $20k/yr versus $70k+/yr for UCLA or Berkeley. University of Texas just announced tuition will be free for all in-state families earning less than $100k/yr going forward.
Then of course, there’s the need-based and/or merit-based scholarships, which schools may give out to entice someone they particularly want to attend, or through blanket policies to incentivize their student body: e.g. University of Southern California (tuition with board around $90k/yr now) still gives out 50%-tuition scholarships based on an objective SAT score cutoff.
That’s not to say paying full sticker price for college never happens, but there’s many options before taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. I believe the average amount of total debt per student is something like $40k, or ~10k/yr.
EDIT: most of these discounts usually only apply to US citizens; international students are often paying full sticker price, and ineligible for government-backed student loans. Some schools use this policy to have international students subsidize their domestic students, to the point that the UC system got in trouble for prioritizing international students over US ones because it was better for the balance sheet.
That's very atypical. The average student loan size at graduation is around $33k to 41k. The only way you get "hundreds of thousands in debt" is if you go to an expensive private university and pay full price.
https://educationdata.org/average-student-loan-debt
>The average private nonprofit university student borrows $33,910 to complete a bachelor’s degree.
>For-profit students borrow an average $40,970.
You're asking if student loan debt repayment is tax deductible, and the answer is no.
Is that accurate “most”, and is it only when compared to trades?