I strongly believe college is oversold but mostly because kids are told they just need to get "any degree", which is a blatant lie. It can totally be worth it if you are objectively looking at what outcomes a specific degree will get you.

Weak junior hiring is due to:

- Longtime trends of companies trying to externalize training costs.

- Avoiding hiring in general due to uncertainty in the economy.

- Companies dumping tons of money into AI thus having to cut money from other places, particularly ones that don't add much value in the quarter (internships).

> companies trying to externalize training costs

Why shouldn't they? You're commenting on a website where the common if not overwhelming view is that people should move jobs every 2 years or they are going to lose out.

Tragedy of the commons, prisoners dilemma.

Externalizing costs is a great short term strategy, for startups. We really should regulate any company over a certain size to force them to pay for their externalities but we all know they won’t happen. I’m sure this won’t have any lasting consequences or lead to the collapse of any economies.

In the UK they do have to pay a levy to fund apprenticeships, then they can claim money back to pay for apprenticeships. They also give preference in contracts to companies who hire apprentices.

It’s been very successful. Huge companies, including tech companies, will hire swathes of young people to fill apprentice slots.

But a big reason people only stay two years because we have had decades of companies gutting every incentive to stay somewhere longterm.

Whether or not companies should or shouldn't in their particular case is hard to answer generally. I am in an adjacent field to software and work on products that have lifetimes measured in decades. In that area short term thinking has been incredibly detrimental to organizations. I would also think investing in educating people that are going to work in an industry or are working in an industry will be a net positive to that industry. That is more a vibe based assertion than fact based though.

Why do they hold that view, you reckon?

It seems like the outcome options are:

1. AI is developed to be smart enough to actual replace people, destroying the labor force and immensely concentrating power.

This seems like bs hyperbole but I am not an expert.

2. AI turns out to be a bubble of false promises and hype, bursts, and takes the stock market and economy with it.

I thought this was the most likely but I keep not hearing popping, so maybe the it's:

3. AI continues to be a tool that can substantially increase productivity in some areas and cause huge societal changes in others. The AI companies keep the hype train going or maybe it tapers off over time until talk meets reality but "real" AI never shows up and the bubble never pops because it's not one. Eventually there is 0-3 new FAANG companies with untouchable control of a tech we increasingly have to use to stay relevant.

Even if we avoid option 1 and 2, 3 doesn't exactly bode well either.

For people looking for an alternative, Proton Pass is one, Keepass + Syncthing is another.

It's funny that this is a question when every college STEM class is taught by people who have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with being able to teach effectively.

I think a lot of teaching jobs are like that.

If you were good at teaching STEM, I think you could probably work nearby in a STEM job for more money.

This does suppose there are good jobs in the area, which can be a bit hit or miss especially out in the sticks. Not to say one couldn't move, but moving isn't in the cards for everyone.

Not really. Public school teachers are well paid when you consider pension, tenure and low stability. Working in industry can pay more than teaching but this is not a guarantee. A public school teacher doesn’t get fired when they turn 40, or laid off in a downturn. It’s less about money and more about qualifications. having a chemistry degree is not the correct qualification to teach chemistry in a public high school. The labor market between stem practitioners and stem teachers are really not substitutes in any practical sense.

I don't know, this doesn't match my experience.

I've been multiple places were the teachers in high-mobility fields were bad because anyone good at them could move up easily. takes just one bad interaction with a superior or nagging from a spouse and poof.

This doesn't apply to people who love teaching, they're in it for different motivations.

Unfortunately and for certain.

When you underpay teachers, people who hate teaching, and hate being teachers, will become teachers because all the people that had better options did something else.

That means overpayment is wrong and underpayment is wrong.

Teachers should be paid the correct amount, no more and no less.

I love how it took three comments to arrive at a tautology.

And then you will have people who absolutely love teaching, and are willing to live in poverty to do so, speckled around that cess pool of mediocrity. It reminds me of high school actually.

There's a post earlier linking to someone doing that for a Tacoma

Proton Drive works well and is from a company that supports privacy but does require a paid subscription.

The problem with this is gmaps. There is no alternative to it and by the nature of it knowing your location it removes anonymity. I would buy, or even pay a monthly fee, for something that is 75% as good as gmaps but respects your privacy but there is nothing out there I have found.

I thought they meant it as "lots of trade secrets in the jet engine field" not "lots of trade secrets in the article".