A degree doesn't cost the company. An in-house bootcamp and apprenticeship program does. Once the less-legibly-promising new hires are equally productive, they now have a resume making them legibly good to the company's competitors in the job market, so it can't make up its investment by underpaying. ("Programmers are happy and tend to stay" is something the competitors can do too.)
I'm not saying don't do it, or that the status quo is good. But I don't think your suggestion really addresses the problem that got us here, the problem that we've subsidized an expensive signaling game (cf Bryan Caplan's The case against education).
> Ignoring his political axe-grinding
This was gratuitous. I didn't even see any politics in the thread.
> Once the less-legibly-promising new hires are equally productive, they now have a resume making them legibly good to the company's competitors in the job market, so it can't make up its investment by underpaying.
It's not like other industries haven't already solved this problem. Law firms will finance your law school and make you pay them back if you leave the firm.
Degrees cost companies through increased wages. Student loans get paid somehow, after all.
> This was gratuitous. I didn't even see any politics in the thread.
You not seeing things is not the same as things not existing. I do see it, and wanted to focus this bit of discussion on the question of degree value, not the assorted other stuff there.
You’re a hiring manager choosing between Alice and Bob. Alice has a degree, Bob doesn’t; you estimate they’ll be equally productive, and it’s common knowledge that your competitors will judge them the same. Do you offer Bob less, since he doesn’t have student loans to pay off? You can if you like, but then Bob will go work for your competitor.
> You not seeing things is not the same as things not existing. I do see it, and wanted to focus this bit of discussion on the question of degree value, not the assorted other stuff there.
You can mention having further disagreements without making it a gratuitous diss.
Quite a lot of people will indeed pay Alice more, especially if her degree is from a brand-name school. You can look up the stats yourself, but they're striking.
I personally build my hiring processes to be relatively blind to elite status signals. But interviewees tell me that's pretty unusual.
> You can mention having further disagreements without making it a gratuitous diss.
I believe it was both accurate and necessary to divert the replies away from the politics. And given that you can't even find the politics, I don't understand why you consider it necessary to appoint yourself my editor.
You misread: given common knowledge that Alice and Bob are equally promising, all info considered, do you make them different offers?
I'm not at all asking whether Alice with a degree gets better offers than Alice without a degree. We both say she does. At the time we're checking in, Alice's degree is a sunk cost. Your proposal is not: it's extra company investment in the non-degreed after hiring.
> can't even find the politics
Are you sure you want to emphasize anyone's reading ability in this conversation?
And accusing someone of political axe-grinding is a funny way to discourage replies about politics. You could've said, for instance, "Leaving aside any politics here..." That would help engender healthier discourse here on HN.
I'm not saying don't do it, or that the status quo is good. But I don't think your suggestion really addresses the problem that got us here, the problem that we've subsidized an expensive signaling game (cf Bryan Caplan's The case against education).
> Ignoring his political axe-grinding
This was gratuitous. I didn't even see any politics in the thread.