[runako]

> I am in position where I would be able to pay that amount down (averaged over 10y) with the same QoL; however I do not have a degree.

Bully for you! You are an outlier. Your employer may also be an outlier. That's wonderful for you, but it is irresponsible to recommend to any young person that they bet their futures on being able to 1) find 2) when they are hiring 3) and click with the hiring manager an outlier firm like yours.

> it's proof that you don't need a degree.

To do the job, no. To get the job, frequently yes. Obviously a lot of us were shipping production code in high school. Doesn't matter to most employers. For better or worse, having a degree is a required/recommended credential at a lot of jobs. Recruiters will often use it as a filter if they get a ton of resumes. Worse -- not having a degree is also a prohibition to some promotions at some employers so there are potentially follow-on effects of not getting the diploma.

Having been in the industry a while, I can say that the last 10 years or so are aberrant in that recruiters have been less selective than at other times. One definitely didn't want to be in tech in 2001 with no degree and a mortgage.

And speaking of 2001, one of the other benefits of having a degree is you're not as locked into a given career. When the dot.com bust hit tech, I saw folks use the flexibility afforded by their degrees to go into other fields: teaching, law school, etc.

[dijit]

Unsure mate, if you have to pay $200k to get your foot in the door then the system is rigged in favour of the elite (again).

I think you're suffering a bit from sunk cost fallacy and a little bit of "got mine", there's absolutely no reason to continue this.

I (and practically all of my friends) may be outliers, but if nothing else it's proof that you can do highly specialised jobs with vocational education.

As mentioned, higher education has massive value to society, but if it is product that forces you into a considerably unfavourable economic position from the beginning of your career, and certainly not as a gate for establishing yourself to employers -- that it has been used that way does not mean that it's a good idea.

There are many stupid things we do as a society, like changing our clocks backwards and forwards every year; the only reason it continues is inertia and our stubbornness to change.

[johnnyanmac]

>Unsure mate, if you have to pay $200k to get your foot in the door then the system is rigged in favour of the elite (again).

I get what you're saying and I agree it's absurdly expensive for what you get. But even for the current college bubble, $200k is above the median students pay for college. The school's tuition currently is $51k, and for reference, MIT is 55k. Apparently the median is still absurdly high ($44k, what the actual hell?), but there are a lot of cheaper options, as well as community college, to help bring those costs down.

[runako]

> I think you're suffering a bit from sunk cost fallacy and a little bit of "got mine"

No, the youth I typically advise are from the types of backgrounds that need every advantage to get the good jobs. They don't "pattern match" the other staff, so they have to compensate by looking better on paper. I have 100% seen people walk into jobs without any credentials; I have not seen anyone do it who doesn't look like management.

> if you have to pay $200k to get your foot in the door then the system is rigged in favour of the elite (again).

Should have added that this number is also an outlier. OP possibly works on a team with people who were all-in for $60k over 4 years (in-state tuition, living at home). The giant public university in my city has an average cost after aid of under $20k annually (including room & board). Living at home, a student could make a dent in that working at an amusement park over the summer.

Some people choose a luxury experience, which is fine. But most students don't go to those colleges.

But yes, college is too expensive. We should resume amply funding state universities.