×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Starbucks Offers Workers 2 Years of Free College

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the grande-school dept.

Businesses 169

mpicpp writes Starbucks baristas working through college are about to get an extra boost from their employer. The company announced it will offer both full and part-time employees a generous tuition reimbursement benefit that covers two full years of classes. The benefit is through a partnership with Arizona State University's online studies program. Employees can choose from any of more than 40 undergraduate degrees, and aren't limited to only business classes.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No good for anthropologists (5, Funny)

nowsharing (2732637) | about 6 months ago | (#47248625)

In the field of anthropology, we typically get our degree first before moving on to Starbucks employment.

Re:No good for anthropologists (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 6 months ago | (#47248673)

Why don't you put your degree to work and go work at Anthropologie?

Re:No good for anthropologists (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#47248967)

That's a terrible suggestion. You should anthropologise to everyone.

Re:No good for anthropologists (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 6 months ago | (#47248993)

Always remember that your barista responsibilites change based on your field. As a former archaeologist, I cannot tell you how many nazis I killed while working at Starbucks.

Re:No good for anthropologists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249053)

I..I could put Strychnine in the double skinny latte...

Re:No good for anthropologists (2)

new death barbie (240326) | about 6 months ago | (#47249467)

If I was in Starbucks and had ordered that double skinny latte... I would drink it, sir.

Re:No good for anthropologists (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 6 months ago | (#47249131)

Shouldn't complain.
Interaction with real Java man routinely!

Nothing to see here (1, Insightful)

McGruber (1417641) | about 6 months ago | (#47248627)

It is just a joint marketing ploy between Starbucks and ASU.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

ahaweb (762825) | about 6 months ago | (#47248653)

It's ASU, not University of Phoenix.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248727)

There's a difference?

Re:Nothing to see here (4, Funny)

plopez (54068) | about 6 months ago | (#47248827)

ASU has swimming pools

Re:Nothing to see here (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47249425)

filled with beer.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 months ago | (#47249855)

"Maybe I’ll go to the real Phoenix and finish school. They’ve got one in Costa Mesa."

Re: Nothing to see here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249003)

They used to pay a bit for real-life coursework at various schools. Now they pay a bit more, but still not all (you're expected to get Pell grants and pay some out-of-pocket for two years) for online-only courses at one school. That's the change: going from choice to monolith. The rise of a new degree mill.

BSES (4, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 months ago | (#47248689)

By 2016, the average barista will need at least a 2 year degree to remain competitive. The best ones will have their BSES (Bachelor of science in espresso services)

Re:BSES (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 6 months ago | (#47248849)

You know, somebody has to design those microgravity coffee machines.

Re:BSES (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 6 months ago | (#47248865)

Is that more or less prestigious than a BA in art history or music theory or some such? I mean, sure, it has Science in it's name, but you might be better off with an Bachelors of Espresso Engineering. I hear Engineers make a lot of money.

Re:BSES (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249515)

I hear Engineers make a lot of money.

Depends. Are we talking about software engineers or real ones?

Re:BSES (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 6 months ago | (#47249763)

No no no! What you really need for good coffee will be the mechanic or tech from trade school. The engineer won't listen to him/her and will put the lever on the wrong side due to a misplaced concept of efficiency. The scientist will complain that the engineer isn't doing it with appropriate reverence with the theoretical underpinnings (to which the engineer has comments on what the scientist can do with the real world non-ideological coffee processing device's lever) and the artist will be secretly wondering why they listened to their school's recruiter about there "not really" being any difference between schools which offer a BA versus the schools which offer a BS in the same field - all while nodding along with the scientist trying to promulgate that myth to his/her current employer. Then one of the non-techs will be promoted into management and then the inferno-roast will break free as he/she suspects that the previously derided business major might have known how to keep spreadsheets from biting back.

Re:BSES (3, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 6 months ago | (#47249215)

Just tossing out a stray thought, but how much value would there be in having maybe one person at a Starbucks with some sort of culinary arts education/training? I'm sure it wouldn't be much, but it was an interesting thought I had.

Re:BSES (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 6 months ago | (#47249751)

Not much, I suspect. Starbucks are a lot like McDonalds in that uniformity will always take precedence over creativity. It may not be the best coffee/burger, but the customer always knows what to expect.

Re:BSES (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 6 months ago | (#47249757)

Just tossing out a stray thought, but how much value would there be in having maybe one person at a Starbucks with some sort of culinary arts education/training? I'm sure it wouldn't be much, but it was an interesting thought I had.

Value? None. It breaks the Starbucks model. Starbucks is really just a fast-food place like McDonald's, the employees at their locations are not chefs and don't come up with the recipes. They are not supposed to make culinary decisions, they follow a specific set of procedures, and although those procedures may be more complex and require more skill than at other fast-food restaurants, they are still a set of procedures that somebody else came up with.

Re:BSES (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 6 months ago | (#47249913)

Jinx.

Re:BSES (2)

McGruber (1417641) | about 6 months ago | (#47250023)

Just tossing out a stray thought, but how much value would there be in having maybe one person at a Starbucks with some sort of culinary arts education/training?

That would increase healthcare costs because Starbucks employees trained in culinary arts would need to consume a lot of antidepressants.

In civilized countries... (5, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 6 months ago | (#47248705)

In civilized countries, education is public and fully tax-paid anyway.

Re:In civilized countries... (-1, Troll)

wiggles (30088) | about 6 months ago | (#47248763)

Are those the same countries that come crying to the US whenever Vladimir Putin decides to turn the gas off? Maybe if they'd spend some money defending their own countries rather than depending on the US to do it, the US could afford to pay for college tuition for its citizens as well.

Re:In civilized countries... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248883)

Back when we used to win wars instead of getting locked into fruitless decade-long quagmires, we also managed to subsidize college tuition more than we do now....

Re:In civilized countries... (4, Insightful)

wiggles (30088) | about 6 months ago | (#47249015)

See, what happened to those days was that gradually, colleges realized they could keep raising prices past what the government could pay, because they knew families of students could pay more. Colleges built palaces to "education", dormitories with gold plated faucets, gymnasiums, new buildings that were completely unnecessary simply because they could. All the while, tuition kept going up - the government saw that tuition was increasing at universities, so they'd raise the amount of subsidy, then the college would raise tuition above that to the point where families were bled just as much as before. Eventually, the bottom dropped out, the government said enough is enough, and held or dropped subsidies. Colleges, so used to 10% pay raises for tenured professors and unwilling to live with 20 year old dorms, screamed - "they're cutting our funding!" - so they just saddle their students with the maximum loan allowance they can - because they know they can get it - just to keep the gravy train coming. The more the government allows students to borrow, the more money colleges will charge.

It's economics at work. It's called Rent Seeking Behavior [wikipedia.org] . If there is money to be gotten, it will be.

Here's a journal paper someone wrote on it. [jstor.org]

Here's a bunch of resources on this from a think tank. [econlib.org]

Re:In civilized countries... (3, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 6 months ago | (#47249049)

World War 2 dragged the U.S. out of recession. Since then, the military and all the ecosystem surrounding it has become a cornerstone of U.S. economy The modern idea is not to win wars, but to have perpetual war. A reason to pump all that tax money into U.S. arms industries, making some people rich and allowing many others to keep their jobs; workers, engineers, managers, contractors, lobbyists.

To enable this "economic system" that puts money into military instead of more productive endeavors or social welfare, you need a constant threat. A constant legitimacy to put money into defense and a patriotic citizenship to go along with it.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 6 months ago | (#47249203)

I think the term you're looking for is [url=http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later]Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex[/url], which he gave a stern and grave warning about as his last words before he left office.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249713)

Slashdot comments use real HTML, not BBcode. If you want to insert a link, use an a tag.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 6 months ago | (#47249519)

World War 2 dragged the U.S. out of recession. Since then, the military and all the ecosystem surrounding it has become a cornerstone of U.S. economy The modern idea is not to win wars, but to have perpetual war. A reason to pump all that tax money into U.S. arms industries, making some people rich and allowing many others to keep their jobs; workers, engineers, managers, contractors, lobbyists.

Actually, what WWII did was show that deficit spending does help fix the economy. The thing is, the Great Depression was aggravated by the fact the feds decided to slow down spending to keep deficits down, which turns out to be the completely wrong thing. You need to stimulate the economy, and WWII did it through immense deficit spending and bond offerings..

Of course, it helped that the spending was for something sought to be "required" (i.e., we need to fight!) rather than trying to spread out the money. Easier to incur great debt buying tanks and soldiers and all that - it's just a lot less hassle when you're dealing with people who don't want to incur more debt.

Similarly, the war on terror started right after the dot-com crash, again, spending your way out of recession. Then you spend your way out of recession in 2008, and everyone complains, because there's no war to force spending and incur debt.

Of course, the thing is, war after a little while becomes a drain on resources - see the low growth after the dot-com crash as war spending sapped trillions out of the economy.

War is just the easiest way to force deficit spending during recessionary times, otherwise you get tea partiers wanting to spend less causing the recession to deepen.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 6 months ago | (#47249861)

World War 2 dragged the U.S. out of recession.

WW2 reduced private spending. The private component of GDP fell after 1941, and while the war lasted, private output never recovered to its pre-Pearl Harbor level. In 1943, real private GDP was 14% lower than it had been in 1941.

It was the end of WW2 (and perhaps co-indicdent with the destruction of Fascism and death of FDR, both large concerns of business leaders before the war) that allowed private spending to return to pre-war levels.

There were actually some economists who thought that the end of WW2 would plunge the world into another Great Depression due to the end of massive government defense spending. US government spending was cut nearly in half from 1945 ($118B) to 1947 ($57B). But the private economy boomed after WW2 despite the dramatic cuts in government spending.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#47249261)

Back when we used to win wars instead of getting locked into fruitless decade-long quagmires, we also managed to subsidize college tuition more than we do now....

Haven't we had a continued presence in Europe for 70 years now? Our presence in Japan has been a few years short of that too.

South Korea has sucked up resources for 60?

The only reason we are not in Vietnam is because we got booted out when we surrendered/lost or whatever that was.

So we seem to do this quite a bit.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 6 months ago | (#47249869)

The European presence can be seen as victory acquisitions which allow for a more global reach of the US military force projection.

On the other hand, the cease fire in Korea was signed without notifying the South Koreans first - UN has itself to blame for a non-decisive conclusion there. Of course the flip side would have been a commitment to victory which had the potential for cost and escalation beyond anything anyone other than the South Koreans were willing to pay (discussing the possible ways of deterring the Chinese from sending three soldiers for every gun into North Korea is what got MacArthur canned).

Re:In civilized countries... (4, Insightful)

Calavar (1587721) | about 6 months ago | (#47249941)

Those are terrible counterexamples, because US investments in Europe [washingtonpost.com] , South Korea [stanford.edu] and Japan [wikipedia.org] easily payed themselves back a thousand fold. The cold war was really a form of modern mercantilism. Whereas 18th century mercantilist empires took raw materials from their dependent nations and sent back manufactured goods, 20th century mercantilists (the US, and to a lesser extent the USSR) built silos abroad and sold arms and bonds to their dependent nations. In return the US got enormous shares of stock in companies like Renault, Dassault, Volkswagen, Daimler, Samsung, and Nippon, sources of cheap manufactured goods, and Iranian oil (Saudi oil after the Shah was overthrown).

We Americans like to pretend that we have the largest economy in the world because our parents and grandparents were harder working, more intelligent, and more creative than foreigners. The reality is that we are on top because we were the only nation to come out of the second world war unscathed (thanks you, Atlantic Ocean), and we used that position to take advantage of everyone else.

Winning wars = winning money. Fighting 13+ year unwinnable wars = losing money, but that is a separate issue.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249211)

GOP faggot detected.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 months ago | (#47249315)

GOP faggot detected.

Yet another bigoted Progressive, showing the true colors and demeanor of that demographic. Thank you for being as predictable as you are contemptible and ignorant.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

pooh666 (624584) | about 6 months ago | (#47249685)

Are you sure you didn't post that as anon so you could make your point? Can you prove you didn't? What was that point again? I think it is the GOP who likes to call anyone who as a different opinion, a "Bigot" On the thoughtful post from bobbied, the U.S. does seem to do this a lot. I think the U.S. almost has an overkill factor in terms of "security" as a result. What is it something like 60 countries we have some form of military assistance agreement with? I don't think you have to be a so called conservative to look at the money being spent and wondering a little at what else that could have purchased. There is no question though, Military power is followed by economic opportunity, so that calculation is going to be a pretty complex one, not just dollars for missile system A in exchange for infrastructure program B.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249463)

You are a Upneck Turtleneck Liberal Marxest:

signed,
The Anti-Socialist

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249711)

No, thats again the "uncivilized" ones, since proper countries have their own power and access to gas from alternativ sources(or can switch to other types of heating/power).

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249783)

I've got some news for you: ask around in an EU country and the prevailing attitude toward the US is far more likely to be along the lines of "piss off and keep your nose out of other people's business".

To Americans everywhere I say this: "be discreet when you are abroad, you are not as popular as you used to be".

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248765)

Ah. So everyone pays for barista's to go to college, not just coffee drinkers? :)

Re:In civilized countries... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248773)

... and in the United States, we have most of the best universities in the world.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 6 months ago | (#47248813)

And if only you had gone to them, you would know that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248907)

I did - and I think that when colleges have to compete for dollars, you get better colleges.
Tell me this, genius, why is it that tens of thousands of foreign students come to the US every year to spend their own private funds at our schools?

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249125)

You might want to look at how many foreign students also pay to go to schools in other countries as well. Canada, for instance, is big for this.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 6 months ago | (#47249019)

... and in the United States, we have most of the best universities in the world.

As a United Statsian with experience in universities on both sides of the pond, your statement is quite laughable. Prestigious != 'most of the best'

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 6 months ago | (#47249091)

Yes. Your millionaire breeding grounds are popular for those who can afford them, further enforcing the enormous divide between rich and poor that exists in the U.S.

The other 98% get left behind.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 6 months ago | (#47249241)

We also have several very good engineering schools, though I suspect that isn't what you or the post that you replied to were talking about. Despite that, I still think "most of the best universities in the world" is an overstatement.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 6 months ago | (#47249501)

You mean in the US, you can get the best university degrees that money can buy.....

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248779)

In socialist countries, education is public and fully tax-paid anyway.

FTFY

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248861)

Americans don't understand the concept of socialism and still think it's a bad thing.

I guess the rich don't need to fear for their lifestyle.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#47249489)

Americans don't understand the concept of socialism and still think it's a bad thing.

Didn't Carl Marx define socialism? Where the state controls (owns) everything or real value and personal property rights are severely limited? Everybody works for the state, and in return gets from the state what they need to live?

Socialism when taken to its logical conclusion IS a bad thing. Socialism destroys the motivation of personal responsibility, discourages risk taking and hard work as a means to foster innovation and efficiency because it takes from the "rich" (who got that way when somebody took a risk and/or worked hard) and distributes it though government waste and fraud to the "poor".

What are they teaching in school these days? Shesh.. Socialism isn't a bad thing? You are nuts. Of course, if you define socialism as something other than what it's traditionally been your statement might be right, but words mean things.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249785)

...words mean things.

Why is it that every time someone trots out this little gem, it is right after they have proven they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about?

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 6 months ago | (#47249945)

That's not what I remember about Marx [wikipedia.org]

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249981)

You're presupposing that people cannot or will not work toward the greater good. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.

Re:In civilized countries... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248799)

Yeah, I'll get right on board with that the minute we stop paying for an education past the 8th grade for welfare bums and students who've shown that they have no interest in actually taking their education seriously. We need a system of education in the US that allows for students interested in trade skills to move on to professional education at an earlier age too. Let those kids hit the ground running at 18 instead of having to go back for more education.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248889)

So you want Japan's high stress inducing system with industrial high schools and academic high schools?

I'd be happy for right now if we just made classes year around instead of months of breaks and promoted school club activity.

also tech / IT can use trades / apprenticeship mod (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 6 months ago | (#47249027)

IT needs more of an trades / apprenticeship model to learning.

at some schools there is to much theory and big skill gaps in the areas covering more of the day to day skills. Yes some theory is good but parts of it are not really that useful vs learning more hands on skills in the field.

Trying to put IT work, networking both WAN and LAN, hardware work, cableing, codeing, QA, research, and others all into CS is bad as some areas need to have there own track and some are very hands with skills that you need to do in an real setting to learn them.

IT has a lot of on going ongoing education but it's time frame is an poor fit for the older College system time tables.

Internships are to hit and miss Apprenticeships are more of formal and last for an extended period of time and have more applicable skills

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248801)

How do the fully tax-paid universities compare in international reputation?

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 6 months ago | (#47248805)

You used that trick on us for health care.

I guess you plan to use that tactic on each program you think that everyone should be paying for.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#47248875)

The U.S.A. still doesn't have a real socialist health care system because you have private insurance companies in the mix.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248963)

Socialist countries also have private health insurance in the mix.

You can pay both state insurance AND private insurance if you wish.

What is BAD for socialist state run health care, is Doctors MOONLIGHTING with PRIVATE healthcare, thus they profit from HIGH LONG WAITING LISTS in state healthcare, then they go work privately also, and take up the profit that way.

In fact most pay private consultatnts for a referral, faster way up a waiting list, then they see the SAME CONSULTANT for the actual state health care.

Health care workers should pick one, state job OR private, not both, conflict of interest.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248809)

The US used to subsidize education far more than it does now. But a certain ideological movement sprang up and laid out the road that is now leading our educational system to the edge of the cliff. The same ideology exists in other Western countries; although it is less popular in most countries than it is here, it is still present, and very dangerous.

The lesson you should learn from the US is: safeguard your civilization, or you will lose it. Never take it for granted.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47248887)

yeah, it was called GI Bill and Army college fund. Navy and air force have their own versions. still around too

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248821)

In socialist canada, education for residents is subsidized, and student loans have reasonable terms. No free ride unless you get a scholarship.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 6 months ago | (#47249011)

In socialist canada, education for residents is subsidized, and student loans have reasonable terms. No free ride unless you get a scholarship.

That's not really any different than in the US. Public universities are subsidized - that's why they cost so much less than private ones (usually 25% to 50% as much). Government student loans seem pretty reasonable to me. No interest accrues so long as you're in school, repayment doesn't begin until 6 months after you graduate, and most of them have repayment terms of 10 years or so.

I went to a major public university, got my BS, and after grants/other financial aid had around $24,000 in debt to pay off after graduation. Payments were less than $200 per month and I finished up on payments about 18 months ago.

BTW my dad is a construction worker who dropped out of school in the 8th grade. My mom is a receptionist who graduated high school. Growing up poor is no excuse for not getting an education. If you want it all you have to do is work for it.

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249939)

Growing up poor is no excuse for not getting an education. If you want it all you have to do is work for it.

If only all those people living on less than a dollar per day knew about this. Farming to survive instead of doing real hard work reading textbooks. They would all be millionaires if they weren't so lazy.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47248873)

and taxes are like 90% because the stupid kids decide they don't want to work in their 20's and go on mental vacations because college was so stressful

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

digsbo (1292334) | about 6 months ago | (#47248929)

In fairness, part of the extraordinarily high young adult unemployment is due to labor laws that punish the crap out of any business that hires a crappy worker. They can't fire them.

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47248897)

yeah, except that there are only a few universities in the country and only a minority of the kids go on to higher education
in the USA every hick redneck town has a college and almost everyone goes to college now

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 6 months ago | (#47248945)

Then why are American schools full of Europeans?

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249145)

The American students didn't qualify for entry!

Re:In civilized countries... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 6 months ago | (#47249167)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Europeans even think about going to American schools if the ones in their "civilized countries" are so much better?

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249115)

Up until about 30 years ago, high school was more than enough higher education for most jobs. In fact, a lot of jobs that have the person performing almost the exact same actions they would have performed 30 years ago now require a college degree when before they only required a high school diploma or possibly a diploma plus a cheap training certification or license. Sending more people to college will only make this degree inflation in the job market worse, not better. We need more vocational schools and need to stop sending people to college who have no interest in going to begin with, and just go because "it's what you do after high school."

Re:In civilized countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249431)

Shared Misery...

Yeah, that's nice and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248733)

...but most of them are already college graduates anyway.

What is the business class limitation (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 months ago | (#47248761)

Was this suppose to be a joke? Or would Starbucks want more B-School majors in their workforce?

Re:What is the business class limitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248781)

When Walmart offered tuition assistance they restricted to business classes.

Re:What is the business class limitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248893)

Many companies only reimburse you for classes that are applicable to your job.

Re:What is the business class limitation (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 months ago | (#47249349)

Was this suppose to be a joke? Or would Starbucks want more B-School majors in their workforce?

They, like most businesses that do better when the economy as a whole is doing better, have a vested interest in more people throughout the society having some sort of actual clue about how businesses operate, what money is, where jobs come from, that sort of thing.

Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47248803)

Back when I worked for starbucks between 99-04 while in school, they were willing to pay for 2 years towards a business management degree. They must be hurting for publicity lately.

Serious degrees (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#47248829)

This is good news for all the departments of gender studies and theater programs.

Online? (2)

qpqp (1969898) | about 6 months ago | (#47248909)

The benefit is through a partnership with Arizona State University's online studies program. [emphasis added]

Really? Wow. Great, but WTF?
They get free online courses? These are only a google (or itunes U) search away regardless of this partnership.

Re:Online? (2)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 6 months ago | (#47248983)

The difference is that ASU will actually confer a degree for all that online classwork, provided the student gets good enough grades. Once can even obtain degrees in EE or CS through their online program. The main thing the student misses out on is campus life.

My employer won't hire... (0)

Hey_Jude_Jesus (3442653) | about 6 months ago | (#47248999)

a person with an online degree. They are open to fraud by people paying someone for college papers and taking tests.

Re:My employer won't hire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249095)

I received an online degree and it doesn't say "online" anywhere on the paper.

Universities don't take personal attendance... not sure how your boss would be so sure test fraud isn't present at that option.

Your employer is just being foolish.

Re:My employer won't hire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249243)

Mine will, but it has to be through a school that has a regional accreditation. The federal Department of Education accreditation is a joke. Basically it just shows the college isn't fraudulent in selling degrees. We'll accept, for example, American Military University(APUS.edu), but not Phoenix because it isn't regionally accredited except for a few degrees like nursing or from Grantham. A great way to tell if an online degree is legitimate is to call the admissions office of a real university and ask if you can transfer credits from the online school in question. We've recently had about a dozen Java developers with online degrees from Grantham apply, and from the phone screenings, it is obviously not a legitimate school. You have to be very careful when picking an online degree.

what are the developers from theory loaded schools (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 6 months ago | (#47249477)

what are the developers from theory loaded schools like?

Re:My employer won't hire... (1)

jpellino (202698) | about 6 months ago | (#47249323)

Smells like a de facto presumption of guilt. Every resume is open to fraud, absent verification. So you verify. Your employer could - I dunno - step up and interview the applicant and find out of they really know their stuff?

Re:My employer won't hire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249605)

Some schools just aren't worth the effort.

Re:My employer won't hire... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 6 months ago | (#47249871)

My employer won't hire a person with an online degree. They are open to fraud by people paying someone for college papers and taking tests.

Sorry, but that's just stupid. Yes, possession of any degree by itself certainly shouldn't be a sole decision making factor in choosing to hire somebody, and I would certainly be more suspicious of an online degree, although that would also depend on what institution the degree is from and what the degree is in. Of course, if the online degree was from some bogus institution that's not properly accredited, then I don't consider that a degree, I consider that fraud, but we're talking about a degree from ASU here, not the Babylonian Online College of Bullshittery. I've also dealt with people with brick-and-mortor degrees that were completely incompetent too. That's what the rest of the resume and in particular the interview is for, so you can figure out if they're legit or not.

Your employer could be missing out on some really intelligent people who might be a great fit for the company. There are lots of reasons to get an online degree vs. brick-and-motor, for example, if you don't want or can't afford to quit your existing job, if you have young kids, etc.

Perhaps instead of having blanket disqualifications like that, your employer should work on their interviewing skills. There might even be some online classes they could take for that.

only one school and does it transfer both ways? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 6 months ago | (#47249067)

only one school and does it transfer both ways?

IRS Rules (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 6 months ago | (#47249083)

Is Starbucks also going to pay the employees' income tax on the amount of annual tuition benefit in excess of $5250?

Re: IRS Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249229)

They are not paying that much. The students still have to get grants and pay out of pocket.

Re:IRS Rules (1)

hurfy (735314) | about 6 months ago | (#47249355)

I think the newspaper article said $6500 out of about $20k for 2 year degree so that would be less. Not sure why the linked article says all, too lazy to search for a tie-breaker.

On Principle Its OK, On Fact Its Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249279)

Almost 30 years ago I chose employment with a Department of Defense Agency of the day that offered short-term (semester) tuition re-imbursment for courses at undergrad and graduate (I took the graduate courses option) and long-term (12 to 18 months) training at a University on their list (not a virtual class that is hackable).

At this point I would say that hackable (i.e. crackable) courses (for those with the necessary skill-set to do it) such as the Arizona State University are counter productive, i.e. again for those with the skill-set, it's a waste of time with little effort to crack and I would say that NO potential employer, US Government or otherwise would give a one-second notice to such a "Degree" in a live-action interview.

Sorry.

Self serving... (1)

jpellino (202698) | about 6 months ago | (#47249281)

pun intended, given the amount of coffee consumed by college students, this is potentially a net win for SB.

Cheapskates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47249851)

2 years worth of coffee would be more expensive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?