Dropping degree requirements doesn't mean hiring without them

Posting reset vs. hiring reality

The degree reset is real. Prior research finds that, even before the pandemic, a material share of occupations began moving away from blanket degree requirements (with the shift most visible in middle-skill roles). Since then, more employers have removed degree language in select postings, but hiring behavior has shifted far less. In this 2024 Harvard/BGI report, a minority of firms meaningfully increased the share of non-BA hires after changing postings, while many others showed minimal or no change.

What explains the gap between policy on paper and practice in hiring? The same report points to familiar mechanisms: the degree still operates as a manager heuristic in downstream screening; assessments and structured interviews are not always in place to replace that proxy; and teams revert to status-quo filters under time pressure. In other words, removing a line from a job ad doesn't, by itself, supply a new way to evaluate capability.

According to the 2024 Harvard/BGI study, 45% of firms fall into the “In Name Only” archetype, where stated commitment yields no meaningful hiring behavior change. Meanwhile, another 20% of firms showed initial progress before backsliding to pre-reform patterns. These companies saw short-term improvements in accessibility but ultimately ended up hiring a smaller proportion of non-degreed workers than before the changes.

Building effective alternatives

Effective alternatives to degree requirements include:

• Work samples or task tests tied directly to real job outputs, which are highly predictive of performance in many functions. Susan O'Rourke, Assistant Director for Leadership and Development at the University of Buffalo, says success comes from getting “hands-on experience and applying what they're learning in the classroom in real-life situations." For candidates without degrees, demonstrating capability through practical application becomes even more critical.
• Proof of work for technical roles in design, data, marketing, or operations.
• Structured interviews designed to evaluate critical attributes like communication, collaboration, and problem-solving skills.
• Transparent competencies defined within job descriptions, outlining required tools, performance thresholds, and behaviors so that screening processes match the actual job needs.

O’Rourke emphasizes that successful candidates go beyond listing credentials: "the ability to articulate the value of one's skills and experiences, as developed through reflection on learning, is key." This means being prepared to discuss specific results and demonstrate how capabilities translate to the role at hand.

Multi-measure testing, which combines cognitive ability, personality, and role-specific assessments, has proven more effective than single-assessment approaches. However, implementation remains challenging, with companies reporting persistent difficulties in standardizing evaluation methods, training managers, and processing high volumes of applicants through skills-based frameworks.

This renewed focus on measurable aptitude confirms that the degree historically served as a proxy for both hard and soft skills. As the reliance on academic credentials for entry-level roles decreases—with only 5% of global businesses considering tertiary education a key requirement for these positions, per new research from IDC, commissioned by Deel—employers are compelled to prioritize hands-on capabilities.

Additional data from the IDC research reveals the top three requirements currently sought globally for entry-level talent, illustrating a dramatic pivot toward verified skill:

1. Technical certifications in AI tools or coding bootcamps (cited by 66% of organizations).
2. Problem-solving and critical thinking abilities (59% of organizations).
3. Strong communication and collaboration skills(51% of organizations).

The path forward: From policy to practice

Simply removing the degree requirement from a job posting is, at best, the end of the beginning. Without meaningful changes to evaluation systems and manager training, companies risk announcing reforms that never materialize in actual hiring decisions.

To successfully close the execution gap and truly hire for skill, companies must implement deep, institutional changes:

Manager enablement

Since hiring decisions are often made by managers outside of HR, they must be trained to develop new evaluation parameters. Managers are accustomed to assessing candidates based on grades or school prestige; without a new template, they often default to the credential as the "safer" choice for their own job security.

The barriers are structural. Even companies committed to change struggle with execution: 53% report lacking the time and resources to implement new evaluation frameworks effectively. Recognition of this gap has prompted states like Massachusetts to mandate formal skills-based hiring training for all managers and supervisors, signaling that intuition alone won't bridge the execution divide.

Process reform

Employers must dismantle the systemic barriers, the "paper ceiling," that penalize workers without degrees. This includes reforming Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to ensure they do not filter out qualified, non-degreed candidates based on old, irrelevant metrics.

The technical infrastructure itself presents obstacles. Applicant tracking systems—used by 98.4% of Fortune 500 companies—filter candidates using keyword algorithms, with over 99% of recruiters using these filters to search databases. When degree requirements are coded into these systems as filtering criteria, qualified non-degreed candidates are automatically excluded before human review. Reforming ATS configuration to prioritize skills over credentials requires deliberate technical intervention, not just policy change.

Focus on execution

The long-term business case for prioritizing execution over pronouncement is strong. Where firms successfully hired non-degree candidates into roles that previously required a college degree, those workers saw their salaries rise by approximately 25% and their two-year retention rates were 10 percentage points higher than their degreed peers (58% vs. 48%). This difference in retention provides a tangible economic benefit to employers, proving that the challenge is a bottleneck in process, not talent.

The ultimate goal of the skills-first movement is not to become anti-education, but to acknowledge that the degree must become one of several measured signals of competence, rather than the sole gatekeeper. While changing corporate culture and biases takes time, stripping out artificial constraints eases recruitment burdens and substantially increases worker opportunity and mobility.