Rethinking The New Norm: Degrees are Irrelevant—Is it true?

As an individual, I have never being someone that accept things just because they are the new norms. I always love to think things through before deciding if accepting it is best or not. Now, on this topic, I think there is a lot that is swept under the carpet when the activists—if I may call the people at the forefront of this idea—discuss issues around the relevance of degree—which is also by implication meant to denounce the relevance of the university system.

On how the university system is designed and how this is related to learning process, I would say first that the university is well designed to support good learning, and this is also to mean, for one, outside academia and how the university system is designed, I haven't found a perfect model that helps people learn certain skills they want to learn.

As a beginner in software development, AI/ML, and currently rounding up my third year in Economics as an undergraduate, it didn't occur to me the significance of the university system design until I decided to learn software development on my own. The learning process have been the most tedious since almost a year ago I started.

Now, let me mention the problems I encountered and to which I have gotten no guidance on how surmount them.

First is the lack of a learning path—or what academia calls syllabus. When it comes to learning things all by yourself, you might first delve in to learn, but no sooner have you gotten in you will begin to realize that you are in a sea of so much knowledge that you know not from whence to begin learning. In my experience, this means it had been a lot of hurdle trying to learn software development. I have tried different approach to which all have failed—even udemy courses and YouTube video courses

First, I tried learning to program by picking up a programming language with the help of courses (python was my choice). But I soon ran into stumbling blocks. I am an inquisitive person, so I find it quite uncomfortable accepting things without know the "why" behind the "what".

For instance, when it came to the python program synthax, I always wondered, why does it have to be in this specific order, why not some other way? Not to talk of other disturbing questions that keep popping up in my head: Why does the computer return an error when the synthax is wrong? What is the meaning of object-oriented programming language? What is the significance of the advantage python programming language over other programming language? and so on.

I had so much question and I naturally decided to consult blogs—that also serve simultaneously as the second approach I adopted to learning software development. But with blog, the issue was even more difficult: I could hardly understand what the blogs wrote (technical concepts problem).

Most technical blog, even top-rated ones, write articles with so much technical concepts that you are left with knowledge gaps—a phenomenon that is reduced to a minimal level such as not disturb the learning process of students in the university system.

And I must say, the issue I suffered understanding blog contents made me realize, to flow in the tech world, I needed a solid grasp of concepts (their meaning and an ability to use them to think and reason). This reminds me of the first topic I was taught in my first economics class back in 100 level: Thinking like an Economist.

In other words, if I want to be able to understand and flow in this world, learn and manifest skills quickly, then I have to be reason and think as a computer scientist, computer technician, software developer and so on, which means gaining a good understanding of concepts, processes, the big picture, the "why's" behind the "what's", history (computer) and much more.

This brings me back to the learning path issue. Most blogs are not designed as a university system is to help you learn in a progressive manner where you get to build your knowledge step by step, each following from the other, each linking to another. With blogs and other similar resources available, you are left to find and discover for yourself where to start learning, and in such scenario, there is bound to be a lot of false starts and the consequent frustration and demotivation.

A typical scenerio is like trying to learn mathematics for the first time: where do you start?

With a well-defined syllabus, you are guided on the steps to take ( what to learn first), so you are guided to learn basic calculation such as addition and substraction and so on before you move on to more complex topics, but with a learn-by-yourself approach as we have now, you most likely would jump at the first topic that comes your way, say calculus, only to discover you can't just understand anything, and the worst thing is, you don't know what you need to know to learn the calculus since you don't know how knowledge in mathematics builds on each other. You are lost in a sea of so much knowledge! No learning path!

Second problem is illusion. With the movement of you-don't-need-a-degree came supporting platforms such as bootcamps, training programmes and courses to help people learn skills they want to learn. Now the issue I find with most of this platform is encased in most of their marketing messages: Learn everything about software development in one month! Now, this might not be true for all, but this should give you an idea of what I am trying to say.

But here is my point: these platforms create an illusion that you can learn anything within the shortest amount of time (not the usual 4 years as defined by the university system) when the actual fact is that it does take time to really learn. Learning requires not just being able to acquire new knowledge, it requires understanding on a deep level (which could often involve some sort of neuroplasticity occuring in your brain) and then being able to utilize the knowledge.

Now, this process takes time. For instance, it wasn't until my third year that I began to really piece together all I have learnt in my first and second year with a more solid grasp of Economics concepts, processes and how to really think like a social scientist, about systems, problems and solutions.

In essence, what I am saying is, it might be an illusion thinking you can learn things, technical things especially, quickly, when it might actually take a lot of time.

Third problem is boredom. I don't know about others but when it comes to learning things all by yourself it can be very difficult to stay motivated. The university system is designed in a way to mitigate against boredom. With incentives, rewards and punishments, and a social system, at least you have something to keep you studying and learning even if it is marks or getting to please that lecturer you can't afford to disappoint, or trying to be the best in class, or fear of failing that keeps you going.

In summary, there are three issues I think the new norm of no-need-for-degrees ignores: Learning path (how do learners handle the so much knowledge available on their skills of interests? How do they guide themselves through this difficult process of learning? How do they guide themselves through the confusion? How do they know the right thing to learn first? The next?), Illusion (Getting to know the realistic timeframe to really learn and master skills away from the one-month-is-all-it-takes illusion), and boredom (how do keep going day after day? It is interesting how one day we are so energised about something and as time goes by, we begin to slacken and the once fascinating thing to do becomes a difficult task).

Now to argue why the university system is still relevant, I think the design of the university system solves these three problems:

• The syllabus helps define a learning path that makes the learning process smoother. Thus, the learner learn things in a progressive manner: from simple to complex. That makes building a well-structured knowledge possible.
• The 4-year programme for most disciplines takes care of the second problem. In addition, the university system is designed such that it requires students devote a bulk of their time to learning; travelling away from home to stay within the confines of a school system so they have all the time to face a single thing. This inadvertently allows the brain time and space to devote a lot of mental energy to developing a new thought pattern and process, and hence, new mental skills (of course, software development is a mental skill) without too much distraction.
• And as regards boredom, with a social system (the so many other students learning altogether in a space gives the atmosphere a feel than learning all-by-yourself cannot give), incentives, rewards, and punishments, I think the university system help provides the mechanism to keep students going even though the initial desire to learn would have worn off due to things getting more complex.

Having said all this, I know the dominant argument given to support the no-need-for-degrees is that relevant skills to enter the job marketplace are not being taught in the university and instead they only teach theories. But I think this argument might ignore a point I think Betrand Meyer, a French academic and Eiffel programming language creator, pointed out in his book, Touch of class.

"The stakes are getting ever higher. When educating future software professionals, we must teach durable skills. It is not enough to present immediately applicable technology, for which in our globalized industry a cheaper programmer will always be available somewhere."

"It is important to keep a cool head in the presence of fads and outside pressures... Student families have more say nowadays... but sometimes results in inappropriate demands that we teach the specific technologies required in the job advertisements of the moment. What this attitude misses is that four years later some of the fashionable acronyms will be different, and that competent industry recruiters look for problem-solving skills, not narrow knowledge..."

Now, having said all these, I leave the floor open for comments and counter-arguments.