Universities owe their graduates with 5-6 figure college debt jobs that can pay those debts off.
> Employers have already shifted enough of their job training costs onto universities and their unwitting students. The free ride is over.
I'm fine with this model, but will applicants be interested in earning a bit above minimum wage for 3 years as we train them from scratch?
This is the model that the Indian and Chinese tech industry uses - hire everyone, pay them a pittance, make them work insane hours, and the ones who survive and build relevant skills graduating to European level salaries in Asia.
I think certification institutions--from universities to bootcamps--have found that it's more profitable to focus on quantity over quality. They are producing dollar store products because the market has shown that employers are dollar store customers, despite what they say.
The more valid the cert program is as a hiring signal, the more it will restrict the quantity of labor supply, and employers don't want this; they want to churn and burn through a pile of young people--or outsource--and then throw them away when their upkeep gets too expensive.
> employers don't want this; they want to churn and burn through a pile of young people--or outsource--and then throw them away when their upkeep gets too expensive
I am an employer and have funded employers. That is a VERY WARPED view of hiring and I hope to god you never ever come near to getting a promotion to EM.
> I think certification institutions--from universities to bootcamps--have found that it's more profitable to focus on quantity over quality
That's BS. There's a reason employers still subconsciously discriminate based on the quality of program you graduated from.
The CS curriculum at Cal beats the CS curriculum at CSU East Bay in almost every single way, and it isn't because of the content alone but also the broad education provided.
We don't need code monkeys (and if you are a code monkey, you job is absolutely going to be automated or outsourced in the next 3-5 years), we need people who deep down understand or can think critically about a specific domain (technical or business).
I don't care if you can code in Cobol or NodeJS - can you deliver an MVP in a quarter, and then have the ability to pivot that MVP to meet changing customer or product demands? Can you architect services to both be cost efficient AND resource efficient?
We pay people in the tech industry good money to THINK. Critical Thinking is the actual blocker, and this is the primary reason why Leetcode and Whiteboard interviews are so popular.
At the end of the day, a Leetcode medium and Whiteboard interview is a puzzle, and if you can solve puzzles, you can think critically about architecture, product decisions, etc.
> Employers have already shifted enough of their job training costs onto universities and their unwitting students. The free ride is over.
I'm fine with this model, but will applicants be interested in earning a bit above minimum wage for 3 years as we train them from scratch?
This is the model that the Indian and Chinese tech industry uses - hire everyone, pay them a pittance, make them work insane hours, and the ones who survive and build relevant skills graduating to European level salaries in Asia.