I'm not sure what your point is.
Oh, sorry if that wasn't clear in the first one. Here we go:
The article is bullshit because it doesn't matter if you get "tech job". It seems to be treating tech jobs as a magical place that's simply better and they're trying to tear down the myth that you need a college degree to get those jobs.
They go on to show that you can get all these tech jobs without a degree.
Except those jobs aren't the sort that are simply better. They're conflating the good tech jobs for which a degree is helpful, with the shit tech jobs which do not need a degree. That false presumption turns the thrust of their argument from "you don't need a degree to get a tech job" to "you don't need a degree to get a shitty tech job". Which doesn't quite have the same inspiring message.
Not to be a class-ist asshole. For some people tech support would be a big step up. It's a good gig compared to breaking your back in a salt mine. But it's the bottom end of the tech industry.
It's worth pointing out that a lot of jobs, when you're starting out right after college, aren't very fun or lucrative.
Well maybe for you, but I graduated with a computer engineering degree and my first job out of school was developing software for embedded systems.
At the point, it's still something that you can make a decent career out of. You could end up being the Director of Technology or CIO of a business, or running your own consulting or MSP business.
Really? Are you sure you're not buying your own bullshit salespitch that you feed to new hires? Everyone I've known with the job has been desperate to get out, move up into managing others, or more commonly move "sideways" into development or sysadmin work.
Let's look at all the directors and CIO and techy business owners. Obviously since they're "at the top" there's going to be less of them then the workers. That's how heirarchies work. So the odds of getting there are slim already. But of the people that go there, what percentage have a degree? Do you think the ones with bigger paychecks in bigger companies are more common or less common to have a degree?
(Also, the director/CIO positions can be mostly management. They're about as technical as cable-pullers)
Now take your typical help-desk worker. Are you going to tell them that if they stay in this job they'll eventually get to be the director? That tech support is a career?
No. At best it's a stepping stone to something better.
I wouldn't say that a PhD is exactly overqualified, either, but there's a qualification mismatch
Whoahoho! That there's some mighty-fine management bullshit. I see what you're saying about different skillsets, but overqualified is overqualified. Call a spade a spade. A comSci PhD can be overqualified AND not have the skills for the job. "Qualifications" it's a word that means something.
I think I would sooner say that when you're fresh out of school, you're not qualified for much of anything at all.
That sounds like a pretty shitty school. Man, that reminds me of this poor technician. He was feeding money to (non-acredited) Kaplan University, trying to learn SQL. The teacher had to learn the topic right alongside the students. Tried to interview for a DBA position in IT to get out of tech support. Couldn't even join two tables. Damn shame.
All in all, I think the article is detrimental to society as college and education is still very much worth it, as long as you get a meaningful degree from a good school (and you're smart enough to be able to get it).
There is a shocking amount of college grads with bullshit liberal arts degree that are working help-desks or coffee shops when they graduate. But I don't see any such under-employment for STEM grads.