[julien421]

[I am the cofounder of Holberton] it is working great for us. As you said we do take the financial risk on students not getting jobs. Education is so broken today: students get in debt and don't find jobs because too many universities are in the business of signing in students and not finding them a job :( hopefully we can show the way and we'll make this change. Purdue university is now offering this too, which is a good sign that things are changing. Honestly I think that this is going to become the norm simply because the current system is broken an unsustainable (US students debt is in Trillion USD! and cost of atudies is getting higher and higher -> more devt and more ppl who can't afford Education anymore) 10 years from now ppl will simply look back and laugh at today's system.

There are two other important things that this model solves too: 0. There is no more financial barrier to high quality Education. Anyone can afford Holberton* 1. Colleges need to make sure that you are a fit to their system/culture/field. Today this is not the case so students are wasting time and money in programs they are likely to fail. By having this tuition model they will need to be transparent and make sure everyone succeed

(*) we are in SF so cost of living is high. this is a pb for a lot of candidates. We are activally working on a solution.

[treehau5]

> too many universities are in the business of signing in students and not finding them a job

If you are a university in the "business of finding students a job" you are university'ing wrong.

[throwawayjava]

> If you are a university in the "business of finding students a job" you are university'ing wrong.

Then everyone is university'ing wrong!

Universities spend an enormous amount of time and money getting students jobs. Maintaining relationships with recruiters, developing alumni networks, and entire departments of full time staff dedicated to "career services".

There's a solid critique of education programs that are overly sensitive to industry fads [1], but IMO universities and educators should definitely include "finding students a job" as an explicit curricular goal -- balanced, of course, with "ensuring students have a long and healthy career beyond that first job".

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/12/29/the-perils-of-java...

[treehau5]

> Then everyone is university'ing wrong!

Hey hey! I tend to agree!

Finding students a job should be a secondary byproduct of first giving them a world class education where you prepare and enable the student for society through being able to learn. Universities are to teach students how to learn so they can learn and be more aware and active about what is happening around them in society. Universities gives you exposure to a wide array of subjects for a purpose. It isn't random, and if you are attending a university where it does feel random, then find a better university.

"The goal of university education is to help build a fairer, more just society" - Steven Schwartz. [0]

Indeed this aligns with Plato's view on education -- "Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice." [1]

[0]: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/columnists/the-...

[1]: http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations/AAI9517932/

[throwawayjava]

I agree with you, philosophically.

But when I apply this philosophy to concrete curriculum design questions in CS, I end up caring about placing students at internships and jobs.

First, internships are a form of education, and I find that students who complete internships come back the next Fall as much more mature programmers. I can then leverage that maturity in programming to dig deeper into interesting theory. Because I'm not helping debug for loops, I can students debug proofs or design more complex algorithms. So I consider internship placement a major goal for the first two years of a CS curriculum, even when my goal is to teach pure theory.

Second, I have a hard time justifying the situation where students are debt slaves to banks. How does that achieve individual or social justice?

Third, your work output is an enormous aspect of your contribution to society. Someone who can build a software platform that helps rural poor in Nigeria get access to micro-loans under a fair terms is making a much greater impact on the world than a philosopher with a perfect understanding of what it means for the world to be just, but without the means to act on that knowledge.

[stale2002]

The problem is that it is awfully hard to be a "life long learner" if you are unemployed, desperate, or working a shit job just trying to make ends meet.

Imagine all that extra time college graduates could spend learning if they were easily able to provide for themselves because college prepared them for the real world and they were able to get a good job.

[xupybd]

Okay nice goals. But we face a problem today will a shortage of low skilled jobs. The few low skilled jobs that remain often still require university training. The rest offer terrible working conditions and pay.

It's nice to have a society that has people who are more aware and active about what is happening around them in society. But what about the average worker that's been unemployed for six months and just want's to be able to afford to raise a family?

We need to meet our basic needs first. Universities used to be for the upper few, but as they are required more and more for the majority of jobs, either the universities need to change or the job requirements need to change.

[muninn_]

Well, the problem is that universities are being co-opted into job training programs, when they shouldn't be. The cost of training people for jobs is being passed on to them through the university, from corporations. It shouldn't be that way. Finding a job should never be the main, or even a large part of attending college. Now, naturally that's not what is currently happening, but we need to work to avoid this as a long-term solution to job training.

[ghaff]

That seems unrealistic for the most part. No, most universities aren't optimized as trade schools focused on near-term employment prospects. And, you can certainly choose a university and major that, shall we say, sub-optimizes employment prospects.

However, it's certainly the expectation of most people that going to university for four years is going to improve their employment prospects--often in a field directly related to their undergraduate study. And as someone else noted, schools absolutely put effort into relationships and programs that improve their graduates' job prospects.

[pm90]

> And as someone else noted, schools absolutely put effort into relationships and programs that improve their graduates' job prospects.

They also put in efforts in a bunch of other places as well.

I will admit that, coming from a lower middle class background, university education to a 17 year old me was mostly a way to optimize my career prospects. But in hindsight, I would say it is a lot more than that. The two most important skills I learned were probably critical thinking and team work. There were also many side-benefits, that you get merely from being in close quarters with so many different kinds of people... to learn that diversity is important, that even people from different cultures are awesome etc. These soft skills are very important, and I don't see a way of acquiring them otherwise.

However, I think a way to remedy this would be to be very clear with what a university provides instead of being vague about it. e.g. if you pursue CS in Uof Something, you have x % chances of getting a job here right out of college. I agree Universities have been co-opted into being preparatory schools for the job market, but that is too narrow a purpose for them.

[ghaff]

I don't really disagree with any of that. There are (mostly good) reasons why most universities look and act differently than they would were they solely constructed for learning some trade whether white collar or otherwise. Part of this is that the training part is mixed in, for many people, with moving out of the house for the first time, being self-directed to a greater degree, etc.

That said, there's also a general expectation that, barring graduate school, university grads will also go on to earning their own living. Some do so with just generalized university education--which is more or less what you have if you majored in medieval German literature. But it's easier with an engineering degree or something else that ties directly to what a company is specifically hiring for.

[dilemma]

You want it to be one way but it's the other way.

[muninn_]

Right. We're doing things the wrong way, and I'd like to see that changed.

[was_boring]

Effort doesn't alway equal results and we shouldn't be praising them not attaining their stated goals. (or perhaps they are, and their goals don't matter to their customers -- students)

I'm just a single point of data, but none of my friends ever found the career services people to be helpful in any meaningful way. In my world, their success rate is 0%.

[throwawayjava]

> and we shouldn't be praising them not attaining their stated goals

My post wasn't intended as praise for career services... it was intended as praise for departments and universities that prepare their students for internships and jobs.

> and their goals don't matter to their customers -- students

I don't know this, but I think a lot of the dedicated professionalized career services people are mostly there more to placate clueless parents. It's marketing, and it works.

> none of my friends ever found the career services people to be helpful in any meaningful way

Absolutely. The scare quotes in my original post are there fore a reason...

That said, good career services people are usually work closely with or are even embedded in the department -- not a separate service in the admin building. They ensure that there are regular talks from the alumni network or local community. That companies are invited to come in for an evening and talk about what they're working on / what skills they need. And then ensure those companies are invited back to job fairs etc. in the Fall, with companies who take it as a serious opportunity and who you think are most likely to fast track your students' resumes.

In fact, at smaller universities/departments, the best career services employees are typically professors who keep in contact with graduated students are former colleagues.

[caconym_]

University is sold to kids as the thing they'll do after high school and before starting their careers if they want to be successful. There's a grain of truth to that too; I have heard that it's hard to get a tolerable job out of college these days but even harder without a degree.

If that's how universities are positioning themselves, if they're opening their doors to students who are clearly not the best of the best and destined for academia and/or highly technical careers that demand high-level theoretical knowledge, then you bet your ass they should be teaching practical skills and helping students find jobs. Otherwise they're just taking (a lot of) money from kids who clearly don't know any better, and leaving them high and dry after graduation.

[julien421]

That is not exactly what I said :)

[jlgosse]

With the name treehau5 I expect there's some affiliation to Treehouse here

[csharpminor]

Unrelated question, but curious: why do your BART ads that say "I am a software engineer" have a fork bomb in faint text in the bottom-left corner?

[gwbas1c]

But 17% of an entry-level job is HUUUUUGE for the student. If I paid that in my internships and entry-level jobs, I'd be in trouble.

Granted, over the long run, it's a great deal! Just short-term, it's extremely expensive. Personally, I'd opt for a smaller payment that lasts longer, even if it means more money for you.