[zifpanachr23]

This would make sense if college degree requirements weren't rampant for tons of jobs that shouldn't require them.

It's a hard requirement a lot of the time in tech as well. Doesn't matter anymore whether you have 10+ years experience at a large company in <very fancy subfield that requires at least grad school level expertise in something very academic> like compilers or something. You'll be viewed as a neanderthal that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus.

In the past, that was less of an issue. A culture of self study (on prerequisite academic topics) was more prevalent. Now the base assumption is that you stumbled into your position and have been flying under the radar as a dimwit changing the color of buttons.

Theories as to why this is now the case:

- Increased competition and rise of CS enrollment and improved perception of CS degrees.

- Bootcamp grads giving recruiters and hiring managers a bad impression about everyone self taught.

- Overhiring in certain subfields and at certain large tech companies causing a reduction in the signaling value of experience.

- Age discrimination

So in other words, with the exception of physical trades, credential inflation is definitely a real thing and it definitely has an impact on how easily you can move positions and/or negotiate compensation.

And if you couldn't tell, yes I'm salty on account of having had to waste time and money going back to finish a degree that I was overqualified for just in order to not immediately get lumped in with bootcamp grads. The entire ordeal was academically worthless. Don't make my mistake kids...stay in school even if it feels like you aren't learning anything so that you don't have to go back and do it while also juggling adult responsibilities. I think this is a mistake that men are probably more likely to make than women as well, which could help explain some of the gender discrepancy in graduation rates. Call it overconfidence fueled by testosterone or something.

[spwa4]

> You'll be viewed as a neanderthal that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus.

Funny you say this 1.5 months after I find out that the university where I got my master's dropped calculus classes (from the bachelor subjects, there never was much non-applied math in the master years). Logic (mathematical logic), discrete math, combinatorics and theoretical statistics have been dropped years past (more than a decade for logic). Applied statistics and "Math I + II" (essentially revision of high school calculus, practical only, no theory, e.g. no more treatment of the difference between Riemann and Newtonian integration) are all the math that's left.

Master degree holders starting 4 years from now will all be "neanderthals that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus". Or at least know little of the theoretical underpinnings of calculus.

[TheNewsIsHere]

That is a shame. My degree required advanced topics at the undergraduate level particularly because of the subject matter (think aeronautics and aerospace). In many ways I’ve found that this knowledge has made life a lot easier in surprising ways. It also tends to be surprisingly transferable in unexpected ways.

As they say, ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[zifpanachr23]

Yep, this is credential inflation in a nutshell. Don't fall through the cracks in the future, if you do then maybe you'll wind up as a neanderthal that couldn't pass college algebra.

[EasyMark]

I think that you’re missing out on the fact that you’re an outlier. Most people in tech do not get there by hacking away at their computer as a teenager on up, or as a hobby (or work related self education). That’s why companies use a college degree as a filter, especially in jobs that are heavily theoretical and not “we’ll just grind on it with man hours until it’s finished”. It suck that you are an outlier but that doesn’t mean companies have to take a chance on you. Life isn’t fair very often, that’s why it’s extremely important to network, go to conventions or trade shows, or volunteer if a company wants someone on site at a 3rd party. I’m in your boat as well. All I have is an undergrad, but I work with PhD’s because I have niche knowledge and experience that a lot of them do not, and after being in the industry for a while I can hold my own, even though this job tends to require PhD as a degree filter.

[tbrownaw]

> It's a hard requirement a lot of the time in tech as well

I've always seen "or equivalent experience". I'd assumed that including that alternative was mandatory-ish for the same reason that explicit intelligence tests are reportedly lawsuit magnets.

[zifpanachr23]

Absolutely, a lot of companies include that, but that isn't binding on how individuals evaluate resumes.

However, when I say it's often a hard requirement, I do mean that literally. The "or equivalent experience" bit isn't there a significant percentage of the time for the sorts of jobs I typically apply for (nothing that has actual regulatory reasons to require a license or degree). Then you wind up with the person that was trying to hire you having to petition up to the division executive for an exemption to company policy or something ridiculous like that. If you aren't really really good, that's often a dealbreaker. I suspect I lost out on many opportunities that way because I can only really evaluate the instances where they tell you about the petition and then tell you it went well (if it went poorly, might as well tell you "we decided to go with another candidate" or just not tell you about the policy).

Additionally, sometimes the lack of strict degree requirement doesn't mean a lack of paperwork that could be prohibitive. Or they'll say something like "every three years of professional experience will make up for one year less of education", which besides being a silly ratio, is essentially a prohibition on hiring people without a degree because I'm not about to accept a very underleveled offer due to how they arbitrarily weight years of education vs years of professional experience. I've been desperate before but never that desperate thank goodness.

As far as being a legal standard, I'm not aware of and have probably never lived in an area where an "or equivalent experience" statement was actually required, on account of it being missing for maybe ~50% or so of the jobs I've applied to or been hired for. If companies are being sued and losing over the lack of that statement, absent other evidence of discrimination based on applicant membership in a protected class, that would be news to me.