> You[']re underestimating the value of a college degree

Tony Blair's university pledge has failed, says his son

"Tony Blair's landmark target for half of school leavers to attend university is no longer fit for purpose, his son has said – claiming that the former prime minister agrees with him [..] critics have argued that it encouraged an unhealthy focus on higher education which led to a proliferation of pointless "Mickey Mouse" degrees and lured undergraduates into racking up large debts without a meaningful increase in their salary prospects."

If this is the problem in the UK where education is cheap, it is even more of a problem in the USA.

But this doesn't adjust for intelligence. If employers are just using the degree as a proxy for a base level of intelligence (and they really are, also class) then you would see tremendous value by this measure. But really that would be 100% waste, because you could do the same thing in an hour with an IQ test that is currently being done with 4 years of college. The tech industry basically does this now with algorithm problems. Google DGAF if you have a degree if you can memorize a bunch of algorithms.

Many in the tech community turn exclusively to technology to solve every problem. It doesn’t occur to such people that e.g. sociologists, who study problems of society as a discipline, have any answers whatsoever to our problems as a society. To them, sociology is just another useless liberal arts degree without job prospects.

In my opinion, if we listened to more socieologists instead of the Zuckerbergs and Bezoses of the world, we’d be much better off as a country.

But I did listen to sociologists when I took a distribution requirement in college. I'll never do it again. It was 80% totally obvious facts about human behavior that don't need to be taught and 20% totally contrived BS. No science going on there.

So you took 1 intro class into a subject and determined the entire field is worthless? Do you apply this decision-making process to other aspects of your life?

Also, not a lot of actual "science" going on in Computer Science departments (meaning following the scientific method in the course of conducting research, as opposed to "here is a thing I built, isn't it neat?"), but that doesn't stop tech-inclined people from joining in droves. So I'm not sure what the "no science going on" criticism means. It's not like the scientific process is used when deploying technology solutions to problems. We just say "Here's a thing! Let's distribute this to as many people as possible!" without any forethought into what consequences will be.

To that last point, from my recollection of the late aughts, early 10s, it was sociologists who first identified that maybe Facebook and Instagram would be bad for society. Turns out they were right. Again.