Tee Emm: your story epitomizes the point of this thread. Such a "skill" is deemed unwanted and un-necessary nowadays by too many up and comers, as well as too many operators. In fact, from your post such skills are not welcomed it seems. What's worse, some people do not acknowledge this as happening in the industry.
True story: 2 x illustrious B777 "Commanders" (as they insist on being called) from Air India were operating from EWR to FRA. They called a Boeing engineer from JFK to urgently come to EWR. The flight was obviously delayed. The "Commanders" were unable to program the route in the FMC. They were newly checked to line on the 777 (from the 744). For verification ask the JFK Boeing engineers. So, how did these guys get endorsed let alone checked to line as Captains on the type? Again some will argue that there is no slipping of standards.
Tertiary qualifications are nothing more than a piece of paper that allows a box to be ticked for a job application. Having said that, those who seek to improve their knowledge (theoretical) base in their chosen field should not be discouraged. For example; being able to calculate weather conditions, cloud types and predicted areas of instability from weather balloon soundings, all plotted on a met sounding chart will never be used in the real world. BUT, to have the understanding and appreciation of how our forcastes are calculated at a grass roots level is not a bad thing. In the same way, most of us (I hope) could discuss in detail wing design, longitudinal, normal and lateral stability (stick fixed and stick free), Vmcg, Vmca, etc. We can use this background knowledge to better appreciate our job, what we do and how we do it.
To some employers a tertiary credential shows that the candidate has the
capacity for higher learning. Not saying either way if I agree with that sentiment, just stating what some CP's and / or companies I have experienced have believed that and recruit as such.
So, it comes down to the airline's requirements and desires as well as filter systems to determine who they select of the candidates. Nowadays there are far too many examples of short course pay-for-degree courses (eg:
http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-amcom-...,3254099.story). The same goes for hours in the log book. On the selection panels I've been a part of we look at the facility the credentials were obtained from in the same way we considered the type of hours the candidate had accrued. A degree from uncle Bob's Academy of Excellence that is a post office box in the mid-west is different to a degree in Aerodynamics from M.I.T. Just as 2000 hrs of VFR operations instructing in the circuit or training area is completely different to 2000 hrs of single pilot multi-engine night IFR in OCTA with NDB and circling approaches in all types of weather and commercial pressures.
But, as we've seen testimony from numerous people posting on this thread (especially the Australian Capt's submission to the Senate Inquiry), too many airlines see credentials and experience are nothing but costs when they can fill the same control seats with lessor experienced pilots (loose term) who are willing to do it for far lessor pay. Others will argue that the [airline] training or standard of [new] hired pilots are not compromised by commercial influences, all be it in the face of overwhelming evidence and eye witness accounts to the contrary.