You realize employers are sometimes regulated by who they can hire, right? A nurse often must be licensed. An engineer who stamps designs (ie one who isn’t under an exemption) has to be licensed. One of the major steps in that process is getting an accredited degree. (Yes, there are edge cases where you may be licensed without an engineering degree, but those are so vanishingly rare as to not really be a factor).
There is certainly room for employers to stop over-credentialing jobs, but there’s also room for universities to improve their role in the process. Employers don’t have “complete autonomy”; we can’t just suddenly decide we’re going to create more nurses, doctors, engineers, and lawyers because we’ve found a loophole in the pipeline.
You are pointing out exceptions rather than the norms. Do not cherry-pick. I'm pretty confident that most people in these threads are thinking about computer programmers, white color jobs, and blue color jobs. Things that don't obviously need a degree.
Depending on the type of nurse, you do not need a degree. Some will need to pass an exam though. You can become a lawyer without a degree, only needing to pass the BAR. An engineer doesn't need a license. You are thinking of a Professional Engineer, which is a specific job title that has legal ramifications. This requires a degree but it also requires you working under another PE for some time and then passing state competency exams.
The cases we're talking about here are jobs where if you do something wrong you can kill hundreds or thousands of people and destroy millions or billions of dollars worth of assets. *You've just completely moved the goalpost to try to make your point.*
Do you really honestly believe that these jobs shouldn't require a formal education?
I'm not going to take anyone seriously that is going to argue that medical doctors shouldn't receive formal educations. Come on, don't be dumb. Just have a normal fucking conversation. You don't have to double down and back yourself into a corner.
I know you're not that dumb, so stop bring disingenuous.
I’m not moving the goalposts. Your words were that employers have “complete autonomy”. That’s obviously not the case, and those are pretty large swaths of professions to pretend like they are edge cases. And FWIW, if you read up on engineer licensure, you’ll realize it isn’t just a small subset of engineers falling under the purview of the regulations but there are carve-outs for “industrial exemptions”. Most people don’t even realize they’re working under an exemption. But many states are bring these exemptions into questions due to high profile failures like Boeing etc. (and the exam is national, but the license is state).
We agree on most, I just think you tend to think on absolutes and I do not. I don’t think most current degree progressions need degrees, but I’m willing to recognize there is a large subset what do. And colleges still hold a monopoly on those degree. But the fact you can’t follow HN guidelines because you’re proved to argue makes further discussion boring and fruitless.
There is certainly room for employers to stop over-credentialing jobs, but there’s also room for universities to improve their role in the process. Employers don’t have “complete autonomy”; we can’t just suddenly decide we’re going to create more nurses, doctors, engineers, and lawyers because we’ve found a loophole in the pipeline.