
Ernst and Young drops degree classification threshold for graduate recruitment - rcurry
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ernst-and-young-drops-degree-classification-threshold-graduate-recruitment
======
gjkood
Kudos to E&Y for taking a radical approach to hiring.

However, as a concerned parent, I hope impressionable youngsters don't mistake
this for 'Yay, I don't have to go to college to get a decent job anymore'.

The lifetime earnings for a college degree holder[1] is probably a lot more
than for those without a degree.

If you can afford it, go to college. If you can help it, don't drop out. Get
that degree. If possible, get a Masters degree. Those six years staying in
school getting your undergraduate and graduate degrees, will make a huge
difference in the rest of your life

We are not all destined to found unicorns or be an early employee in one. For
the rest of us mortals, going to college will make a difference.

Even a Thiel Fellow probably needs to be admitted to a very competitive school
to drop out and get the Thiel Fellowship.

[1] Forbes; [http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2014/05/05/federal-
res...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2014/05/05/federal-reserve-
college-education-worth-830000-more-than-high-school-diploma/)

~~~
mkaziz
Does getting that graduate degree help? I stuck it out for the degree
(Computer Science), and I don't think it helped much with my job prospects. I
get paid the same as my peers who only did undergrad.

~~~
Fede_V
I think from a strictly economic point of view, a graduate degree is a
terrible investment.

Look at it this way - you could spend the 4+ years you spend in grad school
working in a high paying job, investing all the difference between grad school
stipend and your pay. Once you add all the career progression you can make in
the time you spend in grad school - it's obvious that grad school is a net
loser, monetarily speaking.

The upside is that, if you pick something that you love, in grad school you
get to spend time dedicated to learning and studying something fascinating -
and with a good professor, you'll have a pretty fantastic time. In short - do
grad school if you are interested in your project, don't do it as a sort of
career investment.

~~~
hdctambien
If you're doing grad school full time then it should only take 2 years for a
Masters.

You can get a Masters in 4 years while also working at your high paying job.
That just costs you a night or two a week (and not that much money, depending
on the school)

~~~
poikniok
He is talking about a phd, a masters is an absolutely terrible investment, and
strong negative hiring signal whenever I see it, unless it was done strictly
to immigrate to the US.

~~~
RogerL
I've worked with so many people that were amazing, and had Masters, and others
who were nearly useless to destructive. I don't believe it is a signal at all.

~~~
stuxnet79
Precisely why I did not do a Masters. I found out I learned a lot more
(relevant skills in the 'real' world) in my summer internships than I did
during the semesters in school.

------
gcb0
E&Y handled my taxes when i moved countries. They made so many rookies
mistakes on both sides i doubted they even required literacy to work there.

~~~
gjkood
My reply is not intended to insult anyone associated with the Big 4/5 firms.

In my experience, the model is to get one or two really smart people into the
client and then a boatload of rookies to pump up the billing machine.

Every client is a training on the job experience for the rookies.

~~~
Havoc
You don't sound particularly impressed. Despite you're misgivings about the
rookies, these firms have effectively rolled the old master & apprentice
system forward into the 21st century.

The billing machine you mention is also not quite right. In practice the vast
majority of the fees negotiated up front (often on tender basis) & driven by
hours only on paper. So effectively the Big 4 firm loses money if there are
freeloader rookies on board (revenue stays the same, staff costs go up).

~~~
gjkood
I can definitely understand the value of a Big 4 firm when it comes to
accounting/auditing.

It is the IT Consultancy part that I have concerns with.

I understand the value of the Master & Apprentice model. However I would
rather not pay for the Apprentice's training myself.

I know there was a push for separating the Accounting/Auditing side from the
IT consultancy side after the Enron and related scandals but they have
probably coalesced back together.

~~~
Havoc
>However I would rather not pay for the Apprentice's training myself.

No more than any other business model that has people learning on the job -
I'm tempted to say less as the process is designed from top to bottom to deal
with & compensate for people learning on the job.

The more junior people come with much lower cost so there is actually a lot of
pressure on those "one or two really smart people" you mentioned (aka seniors)
to drive effective utilisation of the rookies. This also means people start of
being told "do this" monkey fashion...but then very quickly (<3 years)
progress to a position where you're expected to demonstrate real world
leadership over sizable teams in a client facing capacity. Its far from
perfect, but its a system that pumps out an incredible amount of young people
that went through a trial-by-fire education in real world business & walked
away with solid skills.

>It is the IT Consultancy part that I have concerns with.

Not something I can specifically comment on to be honest I've seen fairly
little of that (saw some cool real time cyber attack monitoring stuff though -
which caught me by surprise). As I see it all the professions (Law, IT,
Accounting etc) are always trying to eat each other's lunch so there will be
uncomfortable moves into someone else's territory. (And be judged as
unqualified by the incumbent)

>they have probably coalesced back together.

It'll depend on the firm in question. From personal experience - on the ground
the divisions (Accounting vs advisory) are pretty cliquey in my experience
even if they are supposedly "together" from a legal perspective. Kinda like a
programmer would have to make a very real effort to get transferred to
sales/finance/HR department in the average company...they're different tribes.

------
blazespin
This is a very long time coming. So extremely talented individuals who had to
work through university (and so grades suffered) will have an opportunity to
compete on a level playing ground. TBH, this makes sense. Many of the well
rounded / think for yourself / independent people I met in university were
supporting themselves while in University.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Does E&Y really want well rounded / think for yourself / independent people?
Or do they want people who will learn the regulations; who will apply them
ruthlessly; and who are always acting to maximize the profitability of the
company?

~~~
blazespin
If it's a matter of doing what you're told, computers are great for that.
Complex problems that require human level intelligence require people who can
make localized decisions without being hand held all the way through. The
problem of new grads that performed well at university is that they are best
at solving narrow, well defined problems. If that's all that E&Y is doing, I
question whether they are providing any competitive value.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Sure, but that requires sufficient hardware and a willing programmer.

~~~
blazespin
Yes, one would assume a forward thinking, competitive accounting firm is
developing such software / hardware. Who's going to be more successful in the
future? The accounting firm with an army of yes men that do what they're told,
or the accounting firm with extremely talented / hardworking / creative
individuals working alongside computers doing all the grunt work? I think E&Y
recognizes that all the assembly line aspects of their job is rapidly
vanishing and what's left is the hard part that has no clear, easy answers.

~~~
jsprogrammer
One could assume. However, from the article it sounded like this programme was
directed at hiring front line accountants.

Don't underestimate the power of an army of yes men. A large enough one could
sustain many for several lifetimes.

------
throw_for_throw
>Instead, the company will use numerical tests and online “strength”
assessments to assess the potential of applicants.

I'm not certain that focusing on numeracy tests to assess an applicant is such
a great step forward. I get the sense that this will only encourage candidates
to "study for the test" and will actually produce more false positives.

~~~
blazespin
Numeracy is an important part of accounting :)

------
nichochar
I think this is a good move, but I'm worried that people will understand it as
"education is useless, I should go work".

The problem here is very obviously that most educational systems are
completely broken. The american one maybe the most, since it's so "famous".

I come from France, I had a better education than you can get probably
anywhere in the world (I went to les Mines de Paris, roughly equivalent to the
top 10% of MIT), and EVERYTHING, since I was 5 years old, was free and based
on merit. This leads to people with degrees actually being much more
performant in the workplace. I am 100% sure this study would have opposite
results in France, as it is very easy to look at what the alumni of my school
go to become.

People, education is primordial, paying for education is a sin that brings all
this shit out. Someone needs to fix this, and probably no one will in my
lifetime in america, it is very sad

~~~
parennoob
> I come from France, I had a better education than you can get probably
> anywhere in the world (I went to les Mines de Paris, roughly equivalent to
> the top 10% of MIT)

What is it about French Universities that makes them so exceptional? I ask
because I've heard this "I come from a French University, and it is reaaaally
good" refrain from a lot of French people – but I haven't seen _that_ many
exceptional performance amongst them. [I should say though, I have met some
really great and hard-working French university graduates, so the overall
level is definitely quite good.]

~~~
pdabbadabba
I suspect that, much like the U.S., the French simply have grown accustomed to
seeing themselves as having the best education in the world. So when I read
comments like this, I just tell myself that this must be what it's like _all
the time_ for people in other countries hearing Americans bragging about the
U.S.

As for the evidence that one system is better than the other, I think I'll
stay out of that one, other than to say that I don't know how you would
reliably measure this objectively except by looking at a ranking that attempts
capture programs' reputations among employers in the field. Even this will, of
course, exhibit some form of national bias, though interestingly the most
well-known ranking, U.S. News and World Report ranks many Chinese universities
very highly, which might suggest that their national bias isn't _too_ extreme.
And then there is the problem of controlling for differences in population,
etc.

~~~
parennoob
> I suspect that, much like the U.S., the French simply have grown accustomed
> to seeing themselves as having the best education in the world. So when I
> read comments like this, I just tell myself that this must be what it's like
> all the time for people in other countries hearing Americans bragging about
> the U.S.

In my experience (not American, though I work in the US), that isn't usually
the case in the tech field. I've almost never heard Americans bragging about
how good or exclusive their school is.

Now there _is_ a lot of mystique about being from the Ivy League in the US,
but it is usually confined to status and social connections _within_ the US
("ooooh, he went to Harvard and the Yale for grad school, must have
connections") rather than being compared worldwide. Maybe this is what you
mean by "bragging about the US"?

------
jakozaur
Great step! I wonder how it translate into action:

1\. Lack of degree will not be a filter, but you need to be genius if you
don't have it.

2\. Lack of degree is a setback, but still can get through.

3\. Just consider skills, interview/internship performance.

~~~
tormeh
The big consultancies don't really give a crap what you studied or what skills
you have, they just want your intelligence and self-discipline. Now they're
dropping the assumption that not having a degree means you're not smart.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

(Everything I've ever heard about these consultancies suggest they are very
bad places to work, if anyone's tempted)

~~~
codingdave
People who join consultancies at the start of their career are normally not
doing it because it is a good place to work. Instead, it is a launching point.
Experience, money, and the "up or out" management style which means you'll
have rapid advancement until you start to stagnate, then you leave on your own
personal path. Some will succeed, some will not.

To me, it seems like a path for management-minded individuals that is
analogous to doing YC for your startup. Put all your life into it, play the
games with the people who have money, most people will wash out early, but a
few notables will become wealthy and have a powerful network to continue your
career.

------
rcurry
Maggie Stilwell, EY’s managing partner for talent, said the changes would
“open up opportunities for talented individuals regardless of their background
and provide greater access to the profession”.

~~~
gmac
My wife's employer instituted a similar policy: instead of a qualification
requirement, they now ask candidates to do a lengthy take-home exercise.

Her experience is that, if anything, it's actually damaging for accessibility,
because in practice the candidates who have the confidence (and possibly
outside help) to do well are pretty well exclusively the ones with traditional
backgrounds, a sense of entitlement, and high grades from good institutions.

------
markbnj
I'm somewhat shocked. This feels sort of like the Borg saying you don't need
to assimilate anymore. Just be who you are! +1 for E&Y.

------
Kinnard
Many, but I'd not say all, blanket degree requirements are a unfair and
inefficiency-driving discriminatory practice along the lines of the criminal
record check-box.

We need a ban the box campaign for academic credentials so that applicants are
judged on their skill and merit and not on too often flimsy credentials.

------
fareesh
This is a great step. In several cases, degrees can be a good way to filter
applicants, but having them as mandatory requirements in these cases can
sometimes deny a potentially good candidate an opportunity. For example, I
know a lot of great front-end engineers who don't know what Big O is.

------
McP
Good! Having done a lot of recruiting recently I've noticed no correlation
between degree classification and problem solving ability. I have a 2:2 myself
:)

------
eruditely
I don't have a degree and I'm glad to hear this, I would rather I be tested on
my knowledge and get a job over people who hardly know anything.

------
jamessb
The title for the HN submission is currently very misleading.

HN headline: "Ernst and Young Drops Degree Requirement for Recruitment"

THE headline: "Ernst and Young drops degree _classification threshold_ for
graduate recruitment"

The meaning is very different: the first suggests you no longer need to have a
degree at all; the second merely suggests you no longer need to have done well
in your degree.

Also worth noting is that Ernst and Young already had a 'EY School Leaver
Programme' (5 year training programme for people direct from school).

~~~
NDizzle
As someone who has earned a top performance award at a big 4 accounting firm,
I think they should drop the requirement entirely.

I have an Arkansas high school education. I came to work there through an
acquisition.

------
noja
Good choice, but let the crash begin!

~~~
catshirt
why but? :)

~~~
noja
Requiring a degree when the content of the degree is not required for the job
is propping up the bubbling education market.

~~~
catshirt
yes, "but" just makes it sound like a bad thing. let the crash begin!

------
zkhalique
Boom! This is big.

------
harigov
I haven't gotten a clue but why do we need accounting firm in this day and
age? Aren't those already automated?

~~~
milhous
Companies like them and Deloitte still offer traditional auditing and
accounting services, but their cash cow is mostly in IT contracting for
government and Fortune 500-type companies.

~~~
markvdb
Not to mention that when it comes to accounting and fiscal advice, they're
more tax avoidance companies than accounting companies.

Take away the big four, and I wonder if $tech_multinational would dare to play
things like the double Irish for some time. Just as an example, have a closer
look at EU commission president Juncker's activities in his former job in
Luxemburg, and you'll see what I mean.

------
m3talridl3y
Well duh. If we don't need degrees to create computer programs, then why would
someone need a degree for any other job in the world, which just involve
pushing buttons on software programs we create?

~~~
phpnode
I really hope this was a sarcastic comment. Personally, I prefer my doctors,
lawyers and nuclear physicists to have formal qualifications.

~~~
aianus
> Personally, I prefer my doctors ... to have formal qualifications.

Why? So they can charge you more? You know medical school in the US is
pass/fail and has a 96% graduation rate? Its completion at that point is
practically meaningless.

And all so I have to pay $50 to get a vaccine administered because nobody is
allowed to prescribe one without a $250k medical degree.

~~~
rifung
I don't see an issue with a 96% graduation rate when med schools are
incredibly difficult to get in to. Not only that but even within med schools,
depending on how well you do you might not get in to specific programs; for
example you have to do better to be a surgeon than to be a general physician.

If they didn't have a 96% graduation rate I think we would be screwed because
we already do not have enough doctors as it is. And with med schools it's not
like you can increase the number of students easily as each student requires a
lot of resources due to requiring residency and things like that.

~~~
aianus
The selection criteria for medical school admission has little to do with
skill and more to do with how likable you are in your personal statement and
interview.

After someone passes that selection criteria (which again, seems to have
little to do with being a competent physician), it doesn't seem like enough of
them are being filtered out for being bad at actual medicine.

I went to a good school in mathematics and we only had a 70% graduation rate.
The people who dropped out or switched majors had passed the rigorous
selection criteria just like the rest of us. I'm suspicious the equivalent
cohort in medical school just get pushed through and graduate all the same and
become bad doctors.

> And with med schools it's not like you can increase the number of students
> easily as each student requires a lot of resources due to requiring
> residency and things like that.

Most who can't hack it fail in first year. I don't think watching lectures and
writing exams in first and second years is all that resource-intensive. And
even if it were, they'd be paying tuition to cover it all the same.

