You must log in or register to comment.

PPQue6 t1_j4x7uoc wrote

I saw this and was impressed by how quickly he's getting to work! Look a college education is an important thing to have, but it's so unnecessary to gatekeep people from getting jobs that really shouldn't require one in the first place. Very happy with this move.


Little_Noodles t1_j4x8poo wrote

Yeah, in an ideal world, young people would get the kind of broad education and life experience that comes with a college education (or similar life experience) before diving into the workforce.

But we’re far from that world, and making people take on crippling debt just to acquire fairly basic jobs that don’t actually require a degree to do is something straight up bullshit.


ReturnOfCE t1_j4xc9wv wrote

> Yeah, in an ideal world, young people would get the kind of broad education and life experience that comes with a college education (or similar life experience) before diving into the workforce. > >

I'd argue in an ideal world, we'd let young people get the education/experience necessary to exceed in the workplace by letting them dive into the workforce and giving them a chance to grow.


Little_Noodles t1_j4xd3z4 wrote

Eh, I know I worked all throughout high school and it didn’t do shit for me other than provide spending money. And that’s been true of a lot of my work experience since then.

But college was actually a pretty meaningful period of personal and intellectual growth for me. In a world where I could have skipped right into the workforce, I’d be a wealthier person, but I don’t think I’d be a better person, and I definitely wouldn’t be able to think through things or find information I want as well as I can now.

The goal of life experience for young people is not just about succeeding in the workplace, which is a place I’ve found to be not particularly conducive to personal growth or developing skills that aren’t directly and immediately marketable to your specific workplace.

My brother skipped college/trade school and went right into the workforce, and he’s still more or less the same dipshit he was in high school. Not a lot of growth there of any sort. He doesn’t have my debt, but I wouldn’t trade places with him.


[deleted] t1_j4xg16h wrote



Little_Noodles t1_j4xi1xo wrote


See and Stevic, Celinda R., and Rose Marie Ward. “Initiating Personal Growth: The Role of Recognition and Life Satisfaction on the Development of College Students.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 89, no. 3, 2008, pp. 523–34 and Bok, Derek. “Character: Can Colleges Help Students Acquire Higher Standards of Ethical Behavior and Personal Responsibility?” in Higher Expectations: Can Colleges Teach Students What They Need to Know in the 21st Century?, 58–79. Princeton University Press, 2020.

My personal, anecdotal experience absolutely matches traditional expectations and more rigorous studies about college and similar institutions (like say, national service programs - see Frumkin, Peter, and JoAnn Jastrzab. “Personal Growth.” in Serving Country and Community: Who Benefits from National Service?, Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 104–32.) in providing more meaningful spaces for intellectual curiosity and growth, as well as personal growth, and providing tools for learning independently as an adult, than does moving directly into the workforce. That’s one of the stated missions of higher ed. No workplace I know of makes that a mission in anything other than the most vague lip service.

In an ideal world, we’d make room for that experience for everyone that wants it, and would benefit from it, and not make that experience cripple them financially for the rest of their lives.

But we should also make it possible for people to skip it if that’s what they want, or if that’s not an environment in which they’d grow as people, and if they can do the job without it, especially since we don’t live in an ideal world.


Jiveturkwy158 t1_j4xi1po wrote

Just validates different strokes for different folks. Some grow better in different environments. Plenty of people don’t grow in school and only in the workforce as well.


TacoNomad t1_j4xxe46 wrote

This is probably going to help out the state far more than the employees. Many of these positions pay significantly less than their non govt counterparts. Allowing people without degrees will help fill open positions.


worstatit t1_j4y0qab wrote

State jobs are known for security and benefits, not high pay. Health insurance, vacation, sick time, holidays, etc. all have value.


TacoNomad t1_j4y3t7y wrote

Sure. But for people with degrees, they don't compete with the civilian sector. Those jobs have vacation, sick time, holidays, health insurance and all those benefits too. Plus higher pay.


OccasionallyImmortal t1_j516bl2 wrote

Private companies offer these benefits, but nowhere near the level of State jobs. The primary benefit the State offers over the private sector is job security. Permanent layoffs are common in private sector work, but almost unheard of in State jobs.

Retirement benefits are night and day. Private sector jobs have 401k's that are limited by the amount you saved and the wisdom of your investments. The State offers pensions: limited only by your pay rate + time served, and they pay until you die.

Health insurance benefits have substantially lower deductibles, co-pays, and employee contributions. A friend of mine works for the state and hates his job, but cannot afford to leave because his wife has chronic health issues that would cost him an extra $20K per year on typical health insurance. He'd be lucky to get that big of a raise in the private sector.

Vacation, sick, and holidays vary considerably.


TacoNomad t1_j51qfex wrote

Well plenty of companies offer job security, but the state has people convinced otherwise, so they're doing a good job marketing that. I just left a company that had a pension and a 401k and stock options. 401ks are not negative compared to pensions and anyone who thinks so just doesn't understand 401k. It's a lack of financial awareness, not a deficiency.

I have excellent health care, better than my moms who is a state worker. I pay $0 per month for it.

Depending on what industry your friend is in, they're probably selling themselves short.

You're speaking like every employer is Walmart. It's not. The state pays substantially less and in many industries, the 'benefits' don't outweigh the pay difference.


OccasionallyImmortal t1_j51ra6a wrote

>You're speaking like every employer is Walmart.

The comparisons are mostly in IT since it's the field that I work in. I've worked as a contractor in State facilities and they do make a LOT less money ~15-20% less. Layoffs are a way of life in my industry. Survival instincts include seeing the signs of a layoff before they start and getting out. This is something that people who work in government jobs never seem to do and it's common to find people who worked there for decades. In IT, 7 years is a long-timer.


Lethander2 t1_j52e7ms wrote

The pensions did take a hit in 2019, it changed over from a full pension system to a hybrid pension/401A system for any new hires after January 2019.


Little_Noodles t1_j4xy52k wrote

Yeah, I think that’s absolutely true, especially in the short term.

I think it would benefit many young people to have a college experience that doesn’t come with crippling debt, and would also benefit the nation’s general body politic. I don’t love the idea that the best use of a young person’s time is just to be trained to work and then assigned to an employer as quickly as possible.

But in the short term, the state will definitely benefit from filling open positions with capable staff and putting people that might otherwise struggle with meaningful employment into good jobs. It’s a good idea, and I’m all for it.


point_breeze69 t1_j4xv39d wrote

Going to college now is going to be a complete waste of time and resources for a majority of people. The majority of jobs requiring a degree will most likely not exist by the end of the decade thanks to AI. Just something to keep in mind for anyone considering going for a degree or currently in the process of getting one.


TacoNomad t1_j4xxmd1 wrote

Well, most jobs aren't state jobs. So people still will have to go to college to get jobs that aren't govt jobs.


PPQue6 t1_j4y1kw2 wrote

Also getting educated is never a waste. There's plenty of ways to go through college without going into debt, for example I'm going to be graduating sometime this summer with my AAS and I'll have done it without having taken any loans.


point_breeze69 t1_j4ydcsv wrote

You’re right that getting an education is never a waste. It’s just a waste going into massive amounts of debt for a non existent job which is the reality for most people entering college now.


VeeTheBee86 t1_j4y4r21 wrote

Eh, it’ll hit plenty of trade jobs, too. Trucking companies are already beginning to use AI driven vehicles, and 3D printing will definitely put a dent in construction eventually. I work in automation installation, and it’s definitely coming for all of us. I agree college is overpriced for what it’s providing now, but nobody should be getting too comfortable with what technology is bringing down the line.


point_breeze69 t1_j4ydpie wrote

Yea I agree. It’s just surprising that doctors, architects and lawyers are going to be automated before plumbers.


VeeTheBee86 t1_j51zaqm wrote

I don’t think it’s as surprising when you think about how they developed the tech — literally programmed it by scraping the words and work of human beings available on the internet. It’s likely going to hit a copyright battle before too long, though, because ChatGPT sometimes pulls word for word from certain books. (We’ll see how that goes, especially if it hits a big writer or company.) Plumbing and other labor require more fine detail maneuvering, so that’s going to lag as the robotics improve. That’s the only thing staving off a very real work crunch, IMO.


artful_todger_502 t1_j4xqzkk wrote

The first minor fissure in the forced college scheme ... This is great. If this keeps up, they may have to make college affordable.


69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j50hbfh wrote

To be clear, higher education is good for society and good for everyone.
Gatekeeping access to the middle class by requiring people to go into six figures of debt to make $60K a year, not so much.
We need to make higher public education free for all who want it and be done with it.


artful_todger_502 t1_j52gx1g wrote

I totally agree. Education is what will make us a first-world country. That is why certain entities are terrified of it and vociferously against it. When I was younger, there was no stigma with not going to college. Some kids were college, some were trades. I wish we would get back to that. A system that demands a ransom/loansharking scheme for a career needs to go. Anything that can force the system back to a place where non-degreed people can have nice things would be a huge step to economic parity.

I will spare you the details of us trying to figure out my Wifes loans. 25 years and it didn't seem to budge. She eventually did qualify for the educator relief, but what we found out, or didn't, as it were, was mind-numbing. There was no one, over the course of at least 200 phone calls, who could tell us how her interest was accruing. They also lost 24x$400.00, or two years of payments. Just gone. It can't be fixed.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4yeop0 wrote

That won't happen until Federal subsidies for student loans is ended. As long as the Fed keeps handing out money willy nilly for students to go to any school they want, tuition will remain high because schools will have no reason to lower tuition.


Fstmiddy t1_j4ygp4w wrote

Don't blame government, blame servicers. They lobby both sides of the aisle hard for a cut of lenders money.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4ykqi9 wrote

The government is at fault for creating the gravy train in the first place. They wanted to "open up" college for everyone, so they started guaranteeing loans. People went from graduating with little to no debt by working part time while going to school to graduating with decades of debt so the "non-profit" schools can rake in that sweet, sweet government money.

Yes, I do blame the government. They created the problem in the first place. The servicers exacerbated the problem for sure - but they were never in the position to create the situation they took advantage of.


StupiderIdjit t1_j50dkbm wrote

"I can't afford to go to college." "Here, have some money." "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT."


ItsjustJim621 t1_j50tefk wrote

To a degree. It would’ve been one thing if these loans were interest free…but they’re not.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j538uhq wrote

Government-backed loans should be interest-free.

Private lender loans shouldn't be interest-free.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j538shp wrote

S: "I can't afford to go to college."

G: "Here, have some money."

C: "Oh? The government is giving students money now? Well then...let's increase tuition!"

S: "I can't afford to go to college again!"

G: "Here, have some more money."

C: "Sweet...tuition increases coming!"

Repeat ad infinitum until we reach where we are today.

Yes, it is the government's fault.


StupiderIdjit t1_j539k46 wrote

It's not the fault of... I dunno... The people raising the price?


IrrumaboMalum t1_j53ain7 wrote

Government created the situation that others exploited. Full stop.

Stop licking the jackboot.


StupiderIdjit t1_j53aspr wrote

So maybe people... Shouldn't exploit it?


IrrumaboMalum t1_j53ceqt wrote

It is human nature to exploit situations like that that are ripe for exploitation. Similar to when price controls are implemented in response to inflation, so people go out and horde the basic necessities.

We will never overcome human nature.

So the government is still the root cause of the problem. They created the problem. Schools did what every business, and yes schools are a business, does when a huge pool of new customers is opened to them.


tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j4zxumn wrote

No, what they need to do is make community colleges free. Then no one will be forced to take loans to get higher education in the first place. That's the next step.


Atrocious_1 t1_j4ytith wrote

That's the opposite of what happened


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4z3dgj wrote think private party companies, the student loan providers, wanted the government to create government-funded competition with near infinite reserves of cash for them to compete against?


Completely wrong. That isn't how business works.

Private company student loan providers have "skin in the game" - they have limited cash reserves with which to make these loans, so they tend to be highly selective in who they lend to to ensure the people they lend to have the highest chance of repaying the loans. This was not a high profit business model prior to the advent of government-backed student loans, and schools also had lower tuition costs to attract as many students as possible.

Fast forward to the government offering government-back student loans. With a near infinite pool of money and the ability to garnish wages and tax returns, the government was able to lend money to anyone who applied. There were few to no standards, since the government was not overly worried about repayment since they had additional tools unavailable to private lenders in the form of the IRS.

Schools saw this new pool of students with effectively unlimited funding and saw a gravy train. Tuitions began to increase. Schools that used to do their own lending and financing stopped - the government would now handle that and if the student defaulted on the loan the school didn't have to worry about pursuing the money.

The government is 100% directly responsible for the cost of college tuition today. Now they are trying to find an "answer" to the problem they created. The answer is simple - end all government-subsidized loan programs. Grants are fine. Scholarships are fine. But the loans need to end as soon as possible. Once that bottomless well of money dries up, schools will have no choice but to lower tuitions, begin working with private lenders again and perhaps even reopen their own financial departments for lending and financing.


Atrocious_1 t1_j50k2zc wrote

Buddy Reagan stripped funding from education in the 80s.

If the fed was directly funding education you'd be paying $200 a semester like your boomer parents did.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j538hs8 wrote

Department of Education isn't the department that handles student loan guarantees.

I've broken it down as simply as I can without using single syllable words, and you still refuse to accept reality and insist the government is somehow not responsible for this entire mess.


tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j4zz2vl wrote

Thank you for passing this all out. I'd heard the headline argument before and it made sense, but it was useful seeing your explanation.

Govt backed loans were intended to make college accessible for everyone, so I would suggest that while you're right, those loans should go away, there still needs to be an option for those who can't afford private loans of their own. Enter: free community college for everyone. You can get your associates or a trade certification for free and then decide if going for a private loan is worth continuing from there.

My personal philosophy is that higher education is valuable for everyone - not just as a workforce credential, but as an experience and an opportunity to learn more and spend more time figuring out where you want to go with your future. It also provides an opportunity for established folks to go back to school for a career change, so it provides flexibility in the workforce. I'm 15 years out of college and I would love to be able to take classes part time to get new skills to change careers, but I can't afford daycare and mortgage AND tuition. Having free community college options would be priceless for working people to expand their earning potential!


IrrumaboMalum t1_j539iys wrote

Free community college is a good start. You can do most of your basic classes there, and then transfer to a "traditional" college and get your BA or BS degree while only paying two years of tuition.

Which should be significantly lower once the government gravy train ends.

We also need to eliminate the cultural concept that "higher education" only begins with a 4-year degree. I got a 2-year degree and I'm doing nuclear engineering work after being in the field for over 10 years now. We should encourage trade programs and associates degrees as acceptable higher education as well.

In fact in some fields a 2-year degree is more valuable than a 4-year degree. I started out as a technician before working my way into being an engineer. Companies need technicians to maintain equipment, manufacture equipment, test equipment and repair equipment. Companies don't want to pay a college graduate with a BS in EE or ME to be a technician - they want to pay them to be an engineer. So schools that offer a 2-year vocational training program that offers an associates degree are highly valuable, but are few and far between.


tellmeaboutyourcat t1_j53noku wrote

Exactly, I agree with everything you said here. I know many community colleges have trades programs built in (I took basic car repair courses at my local CC) as well as a variety of certificates available. There are a ton of ways to continue education beyond high school that doesn't require a private 4 year institution. Making more of those options free will make better jobs accessible to more people and will help a laundry list of economic issues.

Imagine what would happen if homeless vets could take trade courses for free while working the system to get back on their feet. Imagine if a single mom on disability could learn basic coding or get a certification in medical billing (an increasingly remote field).

I'm getting emotional, sorry. But education should be freely available and easily accessible for all. If we could make that investment we would see such an explosion in our economy.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j53qitx wrote

Right - people should have a choice instead of being led to believe that you will never amount to anything unless you have at least a 4 year degree.

Union apprentice programs. Trade schools. Two year schools. Four year schools. Masters and doctorate programs. All are valid forms of higher education, but society has a whole stigmatizes some of them.

Master carpenters can easily make six figures a year, but a college graduate in a cubicle with a BA degree will make fun of him because he isn't "educated." Society has programmed us almost since birth to seek that four year degree to be successful.

I got a two year degree. I started as a technician and now I'm a reactor engineer and will likely me moving on to a position with a utility at a plant in the next few years. But my "worth" in the eyes of society is low because I only have an associates degree and not a bachelors degree, nevermind that my work is far more beneficial to society than many four year degree graduates.

Whatever you want to do, the first two years should be free. Community college or trade school or a tech school. Union apprenticeships are often compensated. And, I believe, masters and doctorates can also be paid for by the school as an exchange of labor (you work for the program while advancing your studies, providing value to the school in exchange for the education).


thenewtbaron t1_j504you wrote

eh, not really. generally, you have been able to use experience or previous job level instead of college for the majority of positions for a while.

a lot of jobs on that list on the "new website" - the experience matters section of the employment website for the state didn't require college degrees before hand. many required less, like the lower clerical jobs just needed a high school diploma or GED equal and then there are more professional jobs that always cared more about your bonafides such as nursing licenses, and generally moving up in the state just required you to be at a lower level such as a clerical supervisor generally just needed you to have been a clerical worker for a while.

I think it does expand the list a little bit and puts a bit more emphasis on the experience, I don't think a couple thousand job openings will stop kids from going to college as a way to get education they would need to be able to get those jobs too.


HeyZuesHChrist t1_j50gb13 wrote

Have you ever tried to apply for a job with the Commonwealth? They have made it nearly impossible to get a job at this point regardless of experience and education. Believe me, I’ve tried. I have scored a 100/100 on every application I have done and the top three scores are guaranteed an interview. I have never even had an interview and have never even heard back from the Commonwealth except for one time when I e-mailed the POC for the position myself. People without a college degree are never going to score high enough on their application to even be considered.


thenewtbaron t1_j50tp2q wrote

Yes. I applied a shit ton 15 years ago and have been with the state ever since. It is hard internally too. a position opens up and many apply. I've been trying to move up for a while but haven't been able too for a LONG time.

I've also interviewed workers to be hired.

college degree doesn't effect your score unless you are using it as education in place of experience.

The state is sometimes hard to get into. There are only so many positions and while the money isn't great for the level of position you are in, the benefits and leave can't be beat. so you are competing against every other person who applies outside of state workers and competing against every other lower level state worker.

I don't know which positions you've applied for but there are ones that pop up all the time. clerk typists, income maintaince caseworkers and others.


DelcoMan t1_j51fqw1 wrote

Part of your problem here isn't education, it's stuff like veterans preference.

A "perfect" score can have additional points on top of it for veterans, so some positions that attracted a lot of candidates would need you to have something like 110 points out of 100 before you had a realistic shot at getting called.

Back when I was still with the PA DOC we had an applicant list thousands of names long that were over the 100 point mark.

It may have changed since I left, but I doubt it.


HeyZuesHChrist t1_j52g3a5 wrote

Actually that’s what happened one time. I know a guy who worked where I applied. When I told him I didn’t even get an interview he said they had hired a veteran. Those are the only ones who can score above a 100 I think. The dude didn’t even make it through the probationary period before they let him go.

Meanwhile, and not to give too much personal info away but I had been doing the exact job I applied for for 13 years at the time. This was a couple of years ago. I was a contractor and I had been doing the job for 13 years but because I was a contractor I was doing it with both of my hands tied behind my back. The job was in the same agency. They wouldn’t even need to train me so they really missed out. I was literally the PERFECT candidate.


zorionek0 t1_j4x9jbu wrote

That’s great! There’s a lot of good, white collar, union state jobs that are accessible now.

This will help fill jobs too, improving services and making people’s lives better in the bargain.

PA should look at reforming occupational licensure, too. 1250 hours to be a hairdresser…


tinymonesters t1_j4xaljc wrote

You need less training to get a professional handgun than scissors.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4yf9qm wrote

I can go to Walmart and buy scissors right now. No ID. No background check. No training.

To buy a handgun I need to go to a FFL and provide photo ID, fill out a Federal ATF Form 4473, a PSP SP4-113 and get a background check through NICS.


fusionfarm t1_j4xdmi6 wrote

Last time I looked, there was no background check for scissors.


KFCConspiracy t1_j4xfskz wrote

Actually, there are. PA requires that you pass a criminal background check to become a professionally licensed barber.

Any felony disqualifies you from becoming a barber. And any misdemeanor that the board deems as related to the profession.


M3ntallyDiseas3d t1_j4y91ku wrote

And too many barbers and beauticians can’t make a living wage.


YAISEDDIT t1_j4yls80 wrote

Too many of them can’t give you a good haircut.


fusionfarm t1_j4xhemq wrote

So there's a job titled as professionally licensed handgun?


KFCConspiracy t1_j4xi4tp wrote

I'm assuming the person you were responding to is referring to the qualifications to become an armed guard. In PA that requires no training and just requires a background check and a couple of character witnesses.


John_cCmndhd t1_j4xxj5r wrote

A license to carry just requires a background check and two character witnesses, but you need an additional license to work as an armed guard, which does require a psychological evaluation and at least some training. Probably less than being a barber though:


SwissyVictory t1_j4xz7oa wrote

What happens to the charecter witnesses if the person ends up killing someone with the gun?

Otherwise it only stops people who litterally don't have anyone willing to say they should have a gun.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4yeyw5 wrote


Why would they be liable for anything?


SwissyVictory t1_j4yj9je wrote

Then what's the point of a charecter witness.

It only stops people who litterally don't have any friends to ask


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4ykgbe wrote

A character witness serves no purpose at all. In fact, at least as far as the PA LTCF goes, the authorities are legally not allowed to contact your references.

For the sake of argument...let's go with your idea. Let's say you are a fine and mentally competent individual, and you have to be since part of the Act 235 requirements is a psychological evaluation. You're on the job for years, no issues.

Then one day something happens and you break mentally. You do something stupid.

Should the people who stood as character witnesses for you years ago face repercussions because of a recent and sudden development in your psychological profile that happened long after they vouched for you?

A logical person will say "no."


SwissyVictory t1_j4ym9ql wrote

I think there shouldn't be a charecter witness at all if there serves no purpose rather than punishing people.

Idk why you think I'd want to punish charecter witnesses, I just think the current system dosent make any sense, which is why I asked why there's charecter witnesses to begin with.


IrrumaboMalum t1_j4yewrr wrote


ACT 235 does require a particular training course to become an armed guard, which (naturally) you have to pay for out-of-pocket and includes a mandatory live fire training environment to qualify you on whatever type of firearm you wish to carry for work (since many armed guards provide their own arms as well).


Atrocious_1 t1_j4ytsmi wrote

There are no training requirements for owning a firearm


marijuanamaker t1_j509319 wrote

Pretty sure they’re already trying to get rid of the licensing needed for cosmetology, which for those of us in the industry, is terrifying.


MindPlayinTricksonMe t1_j4x9cz2 wrote

This is what I like to hear. People want to work. They just need the opportunities for well paying, respected jobs.


memberjan6 t1_j5035fk wrote

We all hope for meritocracy and equal opportunity.

Holup tho. Bad managers in govt were too often found to have misused their unchecked hiring authority to bring in droves of family and friends and those of their buddies at the govt. The defense against these fiefdoms of low merit but loyal hires, was to to impose micromanaged credentials rules, including degrees. I'm sorry but this happened and happens, and now the defenses have been lowered. The shitty career managers in PA are going to possibly stuff all the openings with their favorites again, because they can, now.

The federal government hiring process by comparison is still stringent with requirements for credentials, because of bad past experiences with shitty management who hire whoever they want, instead of merit. Loyalty is often substituted to replace merit and capability. Legions of useless fiefdoms result when govt lifers are given full decision authority on hiring, and by useless I mean for the public they are hired to serve. A fiefdom is of great value to the hiring manager, and their buddies, not much else, because it keeps their gravy train running longer.

The fiefdom owners will quickly fill the jobs with loyalists, and, less openings will stay open for those with merit.


Antioxidanhausen t1_j4xqw2n wrote

Amazon, Microsoft and Google all dropped college degree requirements for most of their corporate jobs around ten years ago. It's still a massive leg up over someone who doesn't have one, especially if you're young. Amazon actually looks at an applicant having owned a business, even if it failed, as a top tier green flag for hiring purposes. My friend is one of many HR Directors there and apparently it's statistically the best sign their data mining team has been able to find in searching millions of resumes that someone will end up being a good employee.


ycpa68 t1_j4zy9c1 wrote

Yes, I am in charge of hiring for a mid-size business. I have a mix of college educated and non-college educated people in my highest paying jobs. I have no hesitation to hire someone without a college education, but every person working for me who has a college education looks at the big picture of the company in a way non-college educated people don't look at it. The only exception when I look at the 15 or so higher paid people is a man who managed two large retail stores. He didn't own the business but was responsible for the stores' success. Management experience and college education always raise resumes to the top of my pile.


Antioxidanhausen t1_j51aeb0 wrote

Yeah, it should be seen as a plus, especially on younger candidates. My best hires personally seemed to be people who worked in a variety of fields, had interesting hobbies and lives, lived in multiple cities or countries, and chose jobs that interested them. Some went to college some didn't, but I'll always ask why they chose to not get a degree. A lot of times their answer to that question decides if I hire them or not.


OhmyMary OP t1_j4x0jzv wrote

This is awesome


tinymonesters t1_j4x9otx wrote

Many of them already were able to waive the education requirement if you had applicable experience. Every requirement for jobs I see say degree in whatever or x years experience. With the obvious exceptions of Dr, nurse, geologist type of jobs.


--Cr1imsoN-- t1_j4xovrg wrote

I sure hope that includes human service positions. We are desperate for people!!


TacoNomad t1_j4xxx5w wrote

It's 92% of positions.

The 8% are required by law to have a 4 year degree. Im guessing engineering related, maybe Drs.


reddit_mouse t1_j4ya2se wrote

Lawyers, all kinds of engineers — environmental, civil, etc, historians. There are lots of job titles, along with Docs, that a degree is necessary. General administration jobs don’t require a degree in the same manner, so I get where he is going. However, you don’t want to go over a bridge designed or approved by someone who started as a drafting tech and worked his way up to become a bridge engineer. Some jobs simply require a degree.


YAISEDDIT t1_j4ym2vx wrote

There are a lot of jobs that require licensure, and licensure means having an education. There really aren’t that many state jobs that require a degree.


Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j4xl7ak wrote

No High School degree? Run for Congress - pays great and perks are through the roof!


Blexcr0id t1_j4zk1lr wrote

Word! I heard that if you get enough political interest, you can take and retake the GED until they cave to political pressure and give you a pass on your FIFTH attempt.


Justanotherangryman t1_j4xglqm wrote

this is a first step I hoped for from him very moderate and humble move.


CatOfTheDecade t1_j4xut0o wrote

Hiring people based on their experience and ability instead of a six-figure piece of paper?

What a concept!


obavijest t1_j4xx3fa wrote

>No college degree required!

>Fifty years of high level experience required


Supercst t1_j4xy4do wrote

I think this is a good policy that can benefit a lot of Pennsylvanians, but I’ve heard complaints from state workers that this makes their jobs more difficult, as less experienced or knowledgeable people all fill jobs that needs qualified workers. I can’t personally say whether or not that concern is valid, but it is a worry among bureaucratic state workers


culhanetyl t1_j598itl wrote

anybody is better then lack of bodies at some point


Unfamiliar_Word t1_j4xxsgg wrote

I approve of this. I was a Commonwealth Civil Servant, albeit 'Management Level'^(*), for nearly six years and although most of my peers held bachelor's degrees and I have a master's degree, there are many intermediate-grade positions (I would say as high as a five or six) that I think that many high school graduates could have succeeded in. Some of them would probably be able to attain higher positions. Given that Commonwealth positions are not exceedingly well-compensated, they're probably better suited to people not carrying student loan debt.

Somebody in my former department in a similar position who was a grade above me in fact had no college degree.

I would prefer that society be less 'credentialist' in general.

I don't know how much effect this will really have, but I think that it's a reasonable policy and perhaps good politics too.

^(*'Management level* employees are not necessarily managers and most are not. I was just a drone myself. Many personnel in budget offices, for example, are 'Management Level'. It's ostensibly for personnel who are in policy development positions. They are are also not allowed to join a union, although they do have civil service protections, an are not paid for working extra hours, which occasionally happens. There are also paid according to a separate MA payscale, which was in fact lower paid than standard (ST payscale employees when I started, as they had been denied pay increases in the aftermath of the great recession with their only advantage being accumulating annual leave slightly faster in their first few years of service. Governor Wolf later unified the payscales.))


NoWarrantShutUp t1_j4yzeal wrote

65,000 positions opened up.. that’s pretty awesome, great start.


Odd-Emergency5839 t1_j50bwtt wrote

Most of the people I went to college with who studied policy, government, etc. would not ever want to work directly for a state. I’m sure they are doing this simply because they can’t get employees otherwise


Lashwater t1_j5158a8 wrote

I don't understand this. There's already no degree requirement for the vast majority civil service state jobs. They already accept experience in lieu of education and have been doing so for many years.

Somebody in HR needs to explain to the governor what "or equivalent experience" means in all the state job postings.


KittySmoke86 t1_j4yl6bi wrote

This makes me so happy. I’ve met so many people in the field that are way more qualified for positions but lack letters after their names. I hope this helps bring out some undiscovered talent. Congratulations!


Bicycle-Seat t1_j50p0e9 wrote

Probably a good idea, it would have better if he got it passed by the legislature


Chemical_Miracle_0 t1_j50s83o wrote

PENNDOT, PEMA and many other agencies are under the direct authority of the executive branch. The only thing the legislature controls is the budget and oversight.


justleavemealone76 t1_j51lg8j wrote

Now they can lower the amount the pay government workers. I worked for the welfare office in PA and made $21 an hour. I moved to Arizona and they don't require a degree for that same job here and I made $14 an hour. Degree vs non degree


DueYogurt9 t1_j53288a wrote

Arizona is a right to work state and Pennsylvania isn’t. Do bear that in mind.


kim7570 t1_j58n1c7 wrote

Now maybe if a vaccine wasn't required for new external hires and the pay was better, then they might actually be able to fill some positions. It doesn't help that the hiring process takes 6+ months.


Holiday-Quit-5673 t1_j5ai1gk wrote

Nice. I have a degree but this might make it easier to get a state job, I work contract already so maybe it will work out.


dogmomdrinkstea t1_j4zzidl wrote

Good, now they can have more people man the phones at unemployment I'd hope. People quit the call center UC rep jobs so fast bc they get berated all the time and it takes a toll on you, IMO that's a reason why there's no way to contact them via phone. I briefly worked for PUA and that seemed to be the case there.


300blakeout t1_j4ytmpk wrote

This should open up many questions. 😉


Zenith2017 t1_j51myo3 wrote

Such as "who stands to gain"? I think the gov overall. A wider pool of applicants for all those jobs. But I also don't see a direct line of harm to normal folks who do or don't work for the government.