David, you’ve set up several nice strawmen and knocked them down. Unfortunately you’re not arguing with my point.
That fact that you’re conflating an MSCS with an MBA tells me you don’t understand my argument at all. I guess I wasn’t very clear.
I’m not arguing that you need a CS degree to “do the work” what ever that means or that having a CS degree means you can “do the work.” I’m not arguing that a CS degree is the only way to get the required knowledge. I’m not arguing “everyone should get an advanced degree.” So argue about them all you like, but those arguments aren’t a response to what I wrote.
When you talk about “grit” you’re getting close. My argument is that an MSCS is a credential that shows the holder successfully solved a large open ended problem, largely on their own. That takes grit. And a lot more including the skills to find answers that aren’t as simply found as conducing a Google search. Many employers will not care about that. But if they do, it’s hard to measure or test.
I would like to comment on the value of a degree. You say having a MS degree “only means they may have studied things that aren’t relevant to the job” and that “higher education has some explaining to do.” Those things are only true if you subscribe to the short-sighted notions that degrees should prepare people for the jobs employers have right now and that the value of a degree is to be had solely in its ability to return a comfortable salary. I’m baffled by this ROI approach to education. Getting a degree is often its own reward and most people who pursue them do so for reasons over and above getting a better job. College in general and graduate school in particular is as much about the intellectual and social benefit as they are about attaining skills.