Why Do Employers Require College Degrees That Aren't Necessary?

[sparebulb]

My grandfather was the boss at a coal shipping facility in the Louisiana delta in the 60's.

He opened the facilities and was more than willing to hire all of the locals, who were mostly black, as he could.

The absolute hard and fast requirement was that they had to be able to read, write, and do simple mathematics.

That knocked out many of the applicants.

Bleeding hearts would blame society and demand more 'gubmint.

I blame their parents.

Things would go down differently today.

The company would get an incentive to hire a minority or foreign worker and quality and safety at the plant would go down.

[DamianTV]

My grandfather was the boss at a coal shipping facility in the Louisiana delta in the 60's.

He opened the facilities and was more than willing to hire all of the locals, who were mostly black, as he could.

The absolute hard and fast requirement was that they had to be able to read, write, and do simple mathematics.

That knocked out many of the applicants.

Bleeding hearts would blame society and demand more 'gubmint.

I blame their parents.

Things would go down differently today.

The company would get an incentive to hire a minority or foreign worker and quality and safety at the plant would go down.

One side says "lower the standards" to allow more people to work there. It has its own set of consequences.
The other side says "raise the standards" more so they dont get sued by those who dont come close to qualifying.

Seems to me this is like a Pendulum; each employer having a different one. Some have unreasonably high expectations just so they dont get sued. Others have unreasonably low expectations because they've catered to the completely unqualified. The "middle ground", an appropriate level of education for a job seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. This is partly why the Middle Class has left the building. The low expectation jobs do not pay a livable wage at all. The high expectation jobs barely pay a livable wage, but to qualify, you have to purchase a very expensive piece of paper and become a debt slave to the lender forever, thus, are expected to work at the worst possible job, just to pay back that lender.

Today, we have plenty of whining and complaining on both sides. "We cant find qualified workers", so they lower their standards. "We need our workers to be more qualified", so they raise their standards. Both call for an end to Free Market as both want govt interference in the job market. If you cant find qualified workers, then offer better pay, or go out of business. Trouble here is that they have gone out of business as government, at all levels, seems to be the biggest employer.

[Swordsmyth]

Another factor is the massive unemployment/labor surplus/anti-entrepreneur environment problem, they can get away with this because they have the luxury of way too many applicants to choose from.

[oyarde]

Another factor is the massive unemployment/labor surplus/anti-entrepreneur environment problem, they can get away with this because they have the luxury of way too many applicants to choose from.

I would think for a good job , yes . There would be more to choose from than there should be .

[Raginfridus]

Because there are corporate departments whose only reason for existing is to maintain compliance with legislation that says such and such must be such and such way.

Why do I need Calculus and Advanced Functions in High School to get into an Accounting program?

Another good question... I smell a racket.

[DamianTV]

Competition for jobs? More people applying for the same job means that an employer can ask for higher standards on the application to help weed through them. The more people with college degrees looking for jobs, the more employers can ask for degrees among applicants. That can get you in. Staying or getting promoted will depend on how you perform and how you get along with your boss (yes, there are those who suck at performance but excel at sucking up to the boss so they get promoted anyways).

Having a college degree does not always mean that a person is going to be a good fit for a job.

Take a guy with a masters in engineering, and he is applying for a fast food job, part time, no benefits, minimum wage. How long do you think they are gonna stay at that job?

---

We have been taught to make associations that simply are not true. Having a college degree does not mean that a person is going to be a better employee. This also completely discredits the Tradeskills by teaching society that they should look down on anyone including those with Tradeskills like Electrician or Plumber as useless and not deserving of any respect what so ever.

"Oh, did you spend 15 years in your trade learning the skills to build my house? $#@! you, you should get paid minimum wage because I spent a bunch of money and got a college degree in poetry and am therefore better than you. And $#@! you if you are a Vet. Poetry is more usefuller than you're useless stoopid carpentry skills you think are so valuable, and I expect you dont look down on me because my PhD in Fashion from France only qualified me to work at McDonalds where they also pay me miminum wage and now because of my degree also expect me to serve every meal to $#@! customers with a smile and a unique rhyme every time, so I is bettar than you."

[Brian4Liberty]

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/1...rent-necessary

So what are your thoughts? PhD in biochemistry to tend bar?

As someone who has posted and hired for dozens of positions (maybe hundreds??) I think I can shed a little light on what's happening here.

When any decent-sized company posts for a position, they have to make decisions about who they end up hiring. Well, in sane world, you'd just choose the person you think will do the best job. And ultimately, that's what usually happens. But the problem comes in who you don't hire. There are so many protected classes nowadays that if one of the other applicants says you hired someone other then them because of a "discriminatory" reason, they can win a lawsuit. At the very least, they can make your lawyers waste their time.

So employers will use the prerequisites as a way to thin out the herd, so to speak. If you don't apply, they can't be sued. Also, if you do apply and you don't meet the qualifications, they can exclude you from even obtaining an interview.

Basically, all hiring decisions must be easily defensible. So we throw all sorts of job requirements out there in order to point to one as a "reason" why we chose someone other than you. In reality, we chose the person we thought would be best, but we're also giving easy cover to the lawyers. It also saves us from interviewing 40-50 people for one job. We have to be able to say we excluded certain resumes for "cause" - not just because we didn't feel like wasting a whole week trying to talk to 35 people that never stood a chance.

That is part of it, especially with bigger companies where HR gets involved in the hiring process.

Here are other reasons that have led to the current situation:

- For quite a long time, companies, especially government contractors who are required to publicly advertise job openings, would intentionally write them such that (almost) no one would qualify. This was done for two reasons. The first is that they have a candidate for the position already in mind, and they write the req such that only that person can fill it. It is a way to get around any laws or company rules that require opening up the job and advertising it to the world.

- The second reason to advertise but not want the job filled is for headcount and layoff purposes. If you have an open req, it can count a "person". This comes in handy when layoffs occur, then a manager can "lay off" a headcount that was not occupied by a real person. Perpetual (and unfilled) open reqs were often for this purpose. In today's environment, it can also be used for propaganda (i.e. "we can't find anyone to fill these jobs, we need more visas").

- For the past couple of decades in IT, the requirement for a Master's Degree or higher was specifically to hire Indians. A Master's degree was rare for American programmers, while it was popular with Indians. Thus they were using old tricks, and the Master's Degree or higher was a convenient way to weed out Americans. IMHO, this is what led to degree inflation in the US.

[DamianTV]

That is part of it, especially with bigger companies where HR gets involved in the hiring process.

Here are other reasons that have led to the current situation:

- For quite a long time, companies, especially government contractors who are required to publicly advertise job openings, would intentionally write them such that (almost) no one would qualify. This was done for two reasons. The first is that they have a candidate for the position already in mind, and they write the req such that only that person can fill it. It is a way to get around any laws or company rules that require opening up the job and advertising it to the world.

- The second reason to advertise but not want the job filled is for headcount and layoff purposes. If you have an open req, it can count a "person". This comes in handy when layoffs occur, then a manager can "lay off" a headcount that was not occupied by a real person. Perpetual (and unfilled) open reqs were often for this purpose. In today's environment, it can also be used for propaganda (i.e. "we can't find anyone to fill these jobs, we need more visas").

- For the past couple of decades in IT, the requirement for a Master's Degree or higher was specifically to hire Indians. A Master's degree was rare for American programmers, while it was popular with Indians. Thus they were using old tricks, and the Master's Degree or higher was a convenient way to weed out Americans. IMHO, this is what led to degree inflation in the US.

... and Degree Inflation means more people have to borrow more money to qualify for jobs they will literally never be hired for. They've shifted the source of money creation (by borrowing into existence) to the people, which makes them Debt Slaves and willing to do what ever it takes to "pay off" those loans.

Result is both Intellectual and Financial Slavery.

[Brian4Liberty]

... and Degree Inflation means more people have to borrow more money to qualify for jobs they will literally never be hired for.
...

And that's a travesty. The requirement for a Master's or higher was simply a convenient way to eliminate people from being "qualified" for the job. Some would say "well, get the Master's and then you'll qualify". Wrong. That misses the point entirely. They did not want you to qualify, so if you have the degree, they'll just use some other excuse. And as you say, you'll have the additional cost or debt of getting that degree.

[DamianTV]

And that's a travesty. The requirement for a Master's or higher was simply a convenient way to eliminate people from being "qualified" for the job. Some would say "well, get the Master's and then you'll qualify". Wrong. That misses the point entirely. They did not want you to qualify, so if you have the degree, they'll just use some other excuse. And as you say, you'll have the additional cost or debt of getting that degree.

And without the ability to pay that student loan off quickly, then the interest and debt accrue quickly. It only makes the lender even more wealthy in the long run as they never gave out anything they actually had, but profit by handing out nothing and in return, the borrower gets nothing. Round and round we go.