The real problem though are the ridiculous cost of state run schools.
As someone who has been out of college for 20 years, I can't believe what my state school charges now.
When I graduated my school was a good value compared to private options. That was the whole point of a state school.
Now the same school cost 4X what it does and I don't know if I could even get in when up against so many brilliant Indian and Chinese students. I assumed when I went the goal of the institution was for a more educated population in the state. That was the point of the huge difference in price for instate tuition.
Now it seems like some kind of money making racket.
Consequently, they balance the books by taking on more foreign/out-of-state students (who they can charge much more).
At the core, though, it appears to be a supply and demand problem: there's a ton of demand for people who want to go to college, colleges don't have the resources (or interest?) to expand supply, and so they raise prices because they can.
With government funding, it's use-it-or-lose-it. I.e. state legislature will definitely allocate it to something else next year, if they come in under-budget in a year.
Add on top of that that state schools have the NASA problem: they're effectively performing (to state legislature and donors) for their dinner. And big, splashy buildings (with dedication names!) impress both. And attract picky faculty and students.
With not-for-profit, facilities are one of the few allowed places you can dump excess cash.
I floated in another comment that government grant/loan programs should impose an ACA-style admin vs teaching cost cap on institutions for participation. Maybe for capex too?
https://dcist.com/story/22/08/18/dc-child-care-workers-colle...
We already have that for instance with employers requiring MS certification to be sysadmin with the full salary.
Hm, I’ve actually had good luck with specializing in Linux. Windows is a given, sure, but any time I’ve interviewed they glanced over my Windows experience and wanted to talk Red Hat.
(update still going but not super cheap - about £21k for a degree. I think it used to be more subsidised)
Any kind of standardized IQ test is going to run into issues because there will be enough data to show statistically that different population groups tend to score lower or higher on it on average and because its scope won't map 1:1 to the business so it can't in and of itself be a necessity.
There are lots of reasons not to do it (I sure wouldn't consider a job that required an IQ test). But there's a mythology that IQ testing is the super-effective recruiting tool that American employers are forbidden to use. No, they don't do it because it sucks ass as a recruiting/qualification tool.
I invite you to get one of those high caliber employment lawyers to post here, or to reach out, and I'll swap notes. But I don't think it's actually the case that high-powered employment lawyers believe that. That, or huge corporations with lots to lose are casually inviting employment lawsuits in order to run candidates through a test that doesn't predict anything.
It's not illegal in the same way it's not illegal to ask the age of your candidate. It's not illegal until it is (in this case, they say their age is > 40 and now any and all actions you take are a legal landmine). The general audience aren't lawyers, so the pedant argument doesn't really mean much in most cases.
>That, or huge corporations with lots to lose are casually inviting employment lawsuits in order to run candidates through a test that doesn't predict anything.
Do you really think all employers are competent? or that companies have perfect oversight of every hiring manager? I've seen (US) postings saying "men/women only" explicitly, discouraging pregnant candidates, and posting salaries below federal minimum wage.
The best "cover" sometimes is that the hiring audience lacks the awareness nor funds to call them out.
>They're not getting hauled into court. Because it's not unlawful to do so
They're in fact being hauled to court all the time. Because it is unlawful to do so.
You're not hearing about it becase they know they fuck up, so it's easier to settle, and then fire the manager. Why do you think these companies have full time lawyers? They are being sued all the time, in small claims and high profile cases.
I only responded because I don't like the implication in your last response that age discminiation is legal and companies are not in fact routinely sued over incompotent postings. In the company's fairness, they don't have perfect oversight of every manager and every posting. But they pay the price.
That is a pretty black and white area, and I mentioned the few grays already. It still happens. If you were just talking past me to double down on the IQ thing, then my apologies.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-degree-job-requirement/
I believe companies use this to screen out lower class applicants, because if it had to do with skills a specific degree would be required. For that reason, I think the practice should be prohibited.
The entry to lower should be cost of education itself, the degree should be free/cheap enough for someone to obtain if they are technical wise qualified. Time spent on a subject is evidence of investment.
They also need to stop gate keeping. Jobs like being an attorney inherently require some certification, which is fair. Some governments in the USA made it illegal to take the bar exam and become an attorney without going to law school. Same thing with doctors and Step 1/2.
If someone can pass without going to school, good for them. Massachusetts in particular is in clear collusion with schools, requiring school teachers to have masters degrees in education.