>If I may, the point I think is that in the majority (or at least a
>large, significant # of) case(s), neither does education prepare you for
>jobs nor do jobs require the educational qualification that is demanded.
One bloke I know used to call it "certification inflation".
> Ergo, requirements for these qualification (access to which is
>correlated to class) are artificial limits. Perhaps a good example is
>the field of computer programming, where the work of an undergrad
>student is doing quite well against a multi-billion dollar "best of the
>world" team's software suite. This is not an exceptional case. In every
>corner of the field you will find unqualified contributors. Half my
>co-workers are trained in entirely unrelated fields (ranging from
>psychology to history). None of the years I spent learning Math and
>Computer Science has made me better-equipped to cope with the world.
>Hell, if I had learnt some Jujitsu or something instead, I could at
>least challenge Mike Larkin and Anarchuck to an ass-whupping!
"Anarchuck", that's a brilliant name, I'm jealous. He ought to pay you for that!
>Also, even if college is required for a particular job, why a link
>between wage and education? Whatever happened to 'each according to his
>ability, ...'?
>
>(I can't believe I am getting involved in one more thread!!! ;-))
I'm glad you did. The "Anarchuck" alone was worth it.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas