The government needs to change education to a protected status, like gender, religion, etc. Make it illegal for employers to ask for candidates educational background and degrees. The core issue here is that companies use degrees and education status as a filter and proxy for perseverance, intelligence, and skill, which forces everyone who wants to be employed to obtain a degree. As more job seekers obtain degrees, companies shift minimum educational requirements higher. Higher requirements cause job seekers to obtain yet more education, and neither companies nor job seekers can break this cycle. This is a market breakdown and vicious cycle which needs intervention by the government. (I fully expect libertarians to complain that the government created this mess as a result of too much easy credit in the form of student loans, and they may be right, but undoing that now is a lost cause and moot point) If the government protects educational status, then degrees can't be used to signal educational virtue, and they will cease to be obtained by everyone. University education will revert back to those who desire education for its merits and not its status.
It already has intervention by the government..
this is called 'student loans' which prop up US treasury bonds..
That the situation of requiring expensive degrees further implies increased dependency on higher paying corporate jobs, in turn further centralizes economic power, increases social pressure to purchase luxury consumer goods, and also strengthens washington lobbying dollars doesn't hurt either..
> The government needs to change education to a protected status, like gender, religion, etc
Protected classes are usually characteristics that people cannot change (eg. race, ethnicity, disability) or that it would be unconstitutional to force them to change (eg. religion). Educational attainment doesn't fit either category so that would be a hard sell, politically. (I don't actually know how protected classes are decided; this is just based on my observation and could be completely wrong)
> The core issue here is that companies use degrees and education status as a filter and proxy for perseverance, intelligence, and skill,
Which implies there's a market opportunity for smart companies to pick up, on the cheap, non-graduates that they can determine, through some other filter, are smart, persevering and skillful (the Moneyball approach, if you will). I personally think it's silly to limit a person's career growth 10-15 years into their career just because they didn't go to college when they were 20. Any "rounded-ness" a person picked up then has long worn off for most.
