🦈💜
All dragon~
I guess that leaves QX for me. *Sadfox* Or K5 forever...
Or maybe I'll get over it and Go Jet.
~Fox
Skywest guys?
- Thread starter grchase90
- Start date
I guess that leaves QX for me. *Sadfox* Or K5 forever...
Or maybe I'll get over it and Go Jet.
~Fox
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Go fly a 1900, I'll live vicariously through you.
Gojets doesn't have 1900s. Go mesa or Compass or something, get in and get out.
🦈💜
All dragon~
Where would I "get out" to? ^.^ I don't have a degree, so I wouldn't get on with a major unless they were actually screening applicants directly rather than programmatically.
I'm shopping, long-term, for base and quality of life. And BETA.
~Foxy
🦈💜
All dragon~
Absolutely not.
(Long-winded self-aggrandizing pseudo-rant follows, please skip!)
<meta rant="fox college rant">
If someone wants to give me a degree for the things I know and the things I've done, that's fine. Otherwise I refuse to pay good money for the crap they're passing off as education, especially when the goal is to "check a box" to gain consideration at one of the third-rate employers known as an "airline". I actually started doing online courses a couple of years ago and was appalled. It's not worth my time, my money, or my principals. The coursework was miserable, the materials were dramatically overpriced (captive market!), the teachers were hollow-eyed, the software was an embarrassment to the software industry as a whole, and the content being presented was far beneath my level. In several different classes, the students (and once, the teacher) remarked that I should be teaching the class.
I'm not in "the great race", remember. I won't be heartbroken to not drive a Shiny Jet... but I stubbornly refuse to do anything at all for the sole purpose of "checking a box"—especially when it involves paying money to a greedy racketeering institution for the pap they're peddling.
I've reached the pinnacle of a career in high tech, and I have experience and knowledge exceeding PhD level, plus almost twenty years of successful projects to my name... and I'm talking about massive forefront-of-computing stuff, not IT. Does that mean anything to an airline employer? Probably not, but I don't particularly care. If the education had some bearing on my ability to fly or was to teach me aviation-related subject matter, it would be a different story and I'd understand the requirement.
That airlines have chosen "degree" as meaningful doesn't make it meaningful to me.
This isn't about being "too good" for something, mind you—it's more about having nothing to prove to anyone except myself.
</meta>
Um, but yeah, aside from that ... nah. XD
~Fox
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
You lucky SOB.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I'm too old to tell people to get their God damn degrees already, but get your god damn degree already.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
phttt, ill get you a degree, I know a guy, just don't ask a lot of questions alright?
@Boris Badenov , got another one for you. Im thinking BS in business.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Podcast called JuRY talks, two episodes ago, rant on college. Do it.
<diamondtime>
Look, if you're heartless, cruel, and egotistical I can get you into a mangement pilot job. Otherwise you're gonna need to buy a degree from me or put the time and work in.
For a rant, that was logical, well written and witty. ... communications major with a side of compsci?
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
Not sure why some people complain about crackerjack degrees. There are lots of majors out there, so if you want to do more than "check a box", get a degree that you can do something with.
🦈💜
All dragon~
This whole thing is a sidebar, but here goes.
From my point of view, I have much better things to do with my $tens_of_thousands. I think the requirement is bogus, and I refuse to compromise my beliefs just to make things easier. I've never needed a degree for the rich, rewarding life I've lived so far, and I would love to know at exactly what point in the coursework the pursuit of one begins to magically transform me into something I wasn't before.
The way I see it, it's a value proposition, and I judge it to hold minimal value for me. I've already studied almost everything that my ERAU course list would require*, and then with the eye of someone keenly interested in the subject rather than the eye of someone just looking to get through it. I've also taken enough college courses now to realize that almost all of them are pap. (I have something along the lines of 45 credit hours, all told)
I didn't stop because it was too hard, or because I ran out of money. I stopped because I felt it was a waste of time and money that I'd rather spend elsewhere. I found the coursework to be very often subjective and dim compared to the composite research I could do on the subject, and I found academic writing to be unpleasant and unrewarding.
I'm not complaining about crackerjack degrees alone—there are subjects I'd love to research, but frankly the information is all out there and academia provides no additional incentive. I fail to see what my money buys other than another line I can add to my resume... one which I don't want.
I apologise for derailing this whole thread with another iteration of this discussion, but I find the arguments surrounding this point incredibly frustrating...especially given the fact that people who have supposedly achieved a high standard of education generally fail to present any arguments I find compelling or logical, and persistently avoid responding directly to questions or challenges I raise.
I've ridden a Harley, and no, I don't get it. I do not find the dogma compelling.
-Fox
* - Minus the math courses. Math is one of the few areas I'd actually like to study in a more formal setting.
From my point of view, I have much better things to do with my $tens_of_thousands. I think the requirement is bogus, and I refuse to compromise my beliefs just to make things easier. I've never needed a degree for the rich, rewarding life I've lived so far, and I would love to know at exactly what point in the coursework the pursuit of one begins to magically transform me into something I wasn't before.
The way I see it, it's a value proposition, and I judge it to hold minimal value for me. I've already studied almost everything that my ERAU course list would require*, and then with the eye of someone keenly interested in the subject rather than the eye of someone just looking to get through it. I've also taken enough college courses now to realize that almost all of them are pap. (I have something along the lines of 45 credit hours, all told)
I didn't stop because it was too hard, or because I ran out of money. I stopped because I felt it was a waste of time and money that I'd rather spend elsewhere. I found the coursework to be very often subjective and dim compared to the composite research I could do on the subject, and I found academic writing to be unpleasant and unrewarding.
I'm not complaining about crackerjack degrees alone—there are subjects I'd love to research, but frankly the information is all out there and academia provides no additional incentive. I fail to see what my money buys other than another line I can add to my resume... one which I don't want.
I apologise for derailing this whole thread with another iteration of this discussion, but I find the arguments surrounding this point incredibly frustrating...especially given the fact that people who have supposedly achieved a high standard of education generally fail to present any arguments I find compelling or logical, and persistently avoid responding directly to questions or challenges I raise.
I've ridden a Harley, and no, I don't get it. I do not find the dogma compelling.
-Fox
* - Minus the math courses. Math is one of the few areas I'd actually like to study in a more formal setting.
elmetal
Ain't nobody got time for that
I don't disagree with your ideas, but here's something to think about.
I am the same exact way in a few subjects, but how will an employer know that I am capable in networking/virtualization if I have no degree or certifications? Will he have all applicants do a trial period?
The degree is an easy measure for the employer to go: oh hey, this guy has a degree in biology. He probably knows at least the most basic biology, and more importantly, he has shown long term (4 years) commitment to something.
Then you have Jack,who has been dissecting animals from a young age and could name every bone in your body, and all the stars in the sky. He can do calc 2 with his eyes closed but he never went to college.
How do you show jacks skills on a resume without college? Do you see the issue here?
Again, I don't disagree with your idea and thoughts about the issue I'm just pointing out why it is that way and it likely won't change for a while.
FWIW I have a degree in economics and didn't even plan to make flying a career until my senior year in college.
🦈💜
All dragon~
Great question, and it's one right up my alley.
The process goes like this: Review resume -> Phone screen -> Interview -> Second interview, if necessary.
The entire tech industry is built on this, and it works very well.
What doesn't work well to determine if someone knows networking/virtualization? Education/credentials.
Some companies DO have trial periods—contract to hire—but I don't consider that strictly necessary.
Easy, but wrong. I've worked for HP at the 'Master Technologist' level for more than five years. There's your commitment. As a credential, however, I would look past it if I were bringing myself in for an interview, and look at the actual stuff I've done.
Then you have Jill Ballysubramanian with a Master's degree from IIT Madras who can't code her way out of a paper bag that's open at both ends. Or Joe with a master's degree in aviation science from $WELL_RESPECTED_ACADEMIC_INSTITUTION. Do you hire him for a job as a Gulfstream captain based on that qualification? Do you even bring him in for an interview without a whole lot more supporting evidence than that?
Fair point, and I do greatly appreciate your reply. In my experience, these things are highly situational, and sometimes the education is the measure of the man, so to speak. However, in my experience, those are mostly in highly specialized scientific disciplines.
-Fox
elmetal
Ain't nobody got time for that
And that's exactly how it works in the 91 side of things.
These are airlines, not silicon valley companies they are a little behind the times but not only that they have thousands and thousands of currentcurrent employees through which they've developed a method. They have narrowed down what makes a good applicant and although there are clear outliers , we're just numbers and statistics to them, the numbers don't lie. The college degree yielding applicant does better in their experience.
It sucks but that's how they work. Airlines are huge on safety as we're all aware, and through repetition and sometimes errors and accidents we find safety. Through their repetition and errors of getting not such great applicants, they narrow their ideal applicant qualifications.
It is BS, but look at the big picture. You're thinking microeconomic, they're thinking macroeconomic.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
It seems in the airline world a degree is just a metric to weed people out. But an airline gig isn't what every pilot is shooting for.
I for one decided to go back to school and *gasp* get a degree in aviation. Why? Because I knew I couldn't focus on much besides airplanes for long (let alone a few years), and I was lagging in the self-discipline area.
I for one decided to go back to school and *gasp* get a degree in aviation. Why? Because I knew I couldn't focus on much besides airplanes for long (let alone a few years), and I was lagging in the self-discipline area.
