Cant you find out the answer for these questions with a series of short tests?
I once applied for a job at IBM and instead of an initial interview they sent me a series of interactive tests to check my skills. I ended up moving to another country and didn’t follow through, but still liked this approach.
Also in the EU I can see lots of job listings are using now a system where you either have a certain type of education/degree or a certain previous experience to be eligible to apply.
Still you need to have knowledge of the specific field, but technically if you started at the bottom with an entry level low skill job you can get higher with experience alone and without a university degree.
A local factory likes people with college degrees, any degree, no matter what college or course, but also offer tests twice a year in large groups for exactly the reason that plenty y of people are qualified, and can do everything they need, but never went to college.
Will they? Probably not unless it’s a niche employer. Why bother going through the extra effort when you can just say “degrees only” and turn your nose up at anyone without one?
I guess 5 rounds of 90 minutes long multi-stage interview process is much more efficient, where people selling an idealised version of themselves in imaginary scenarios.
Also talking to HR/recruitment department, who has no idea of the actual job is a great way to find the right candidate.
A college degree ahows you can complete a series of seemingly-unrelated tasks (courses) across multiple phases (semesters), to finish a major project (degree).
It means you finish what you start and have an eye on the future instead of the present.
Your answer sounds like it was lifted from a LinkedIn motivational post.
College favours the rich, who can afford it and I don’t think people with higher education are better at planning their future.
Lots of people are forced through college by their parents, often backed up with money and safety nets of security - if they fail the first time they just throw more money at it and try again.
A lack of a degree isn’t proof of anything, good or bad (for most jobs).
But a degree is a positive indicator.
The reality is that when hiring an employee I don’t care how privileged they are. I care about whether they’re going to be a good fit for the position.
There are other things people can use to demonstrate their ability to be a good employee. If someone worked for a company for multiple years and was promoted during that time it’s a good indicator.
If someone is 23 and has worked for 10 different companies, I’m gonna guess they’re flaky.
However, if someone worked for the same company more than once that’s a good sign, because after leaving the company wanted them back.
But, all else being equal, having a degree is better than not for a skilled position, and will usually demand more money.
It’s definitely not a perfect system and you’re absolutely right that it significantly favors people with strong support and safety nets, especially those of a financial nature.
That being said it’s a very easy shorthand for a company to take and is reliable enough to keep using it, just like how financial institutions in the US use SSNs as private identifiers because it’s easier and cheaper than running and supporting their own systems/assessments and mostly works well enough
I’ve grown rather cynical of corp-speak lately, and I’ve heard this line before.
Whether said overtly or not, at least nowadays I’d be willing to bet a degree is used as a positive indicator that the candidate is likely in debt, will do anything for a job, and therefore will stick around and put up with almost anything for less wages, because they lack leverage.
They’re therefore cheaper to hire than an independent individual that might exercise their freedom to leave if they’re not treated with respect.
This might also explain why folks with high level degrees are constantly called “overqualified” and ghosted.
Cant you find out the answer for these questions with a series of short tests?
I once applied for a job at IBM and instead of an initial interview they sent me a series of interactive tests to check my skills. I ended up moving to another country and didn’t follow through, but still liked this approach.
Also in the EU I can see lots of job listings are using now a system where you either have a certain type of education/degree or a certain previous experience to be eligible to apply.
Still you need to have knowledge of the specific field, but technically if you started at the bottom with an entry level low skill job you can get higher with experience alone and without a university degree.
Can they? Yes. Absolutely. 100%.
A local factory likes people with college degrees, any degree, no matter what college or course, but also offer tests twice a year in large groups for exactly the reason that plenty y of people are qualified, and can do everything they need, but never went to college.
Will they? Probably not unless it’s a niche employer. Why bother going through the extra effort when you can just say “degrees only” and turn your nose up at anyone without one?
I guess 5 rounds of 90 minutes long multi-stage interview process is much more efficient, where people selling an idealised version of themselves in imaginary scenarios.
Also talking to HR/recruitment department, who has no idea of the actual job is a great way to find the right candidate.
I hate interviews. I’ve been on both sides and neither is fun.
One person is pretending to be what they think the employer wants. The other is trying to figure out who’s the least full of shit.
I just generally hate situations where everybody is expected to be fake, and not playing the “right character” will get you shunned.
A college degree ahows you can complete a series of seemingly-unrelated tasks (courses) across multiple phases (semesters), to finish a major project (degree).
It means you finish what you start and have an eye on the future instead of the present.
Your answer sounds like it was lifted from a LinkedIn motivational post.
College favours the rich, who can afford it and I don’t think people with higher education are better at planning their future.
Lots of people are forced through college by their parents, often backed up with money and safety nets of security - if they fail the first time they just throw more money at it and try again.
A lack of a degree isn’t proof of anything, good or bad (for most jobs).
But a degree is a positive indicator.
The reality is that when hiring an employee I don’t care how privileged they are. I care about whether they’re going to be a good fit for the position.
There are other things people can use to demonstrate their ability to be a good employee. If someone worked for a company for multiple years and was promoted during that time it’s a good indicator.
If someone is 23 and has worked for 10 different companies, I’m gonna guess they’re flaky.
However, if someone worked for the same company more than once that’s a good sign, because after leaving the company wanted them back.
But, all else being equal, having a degree is better than not for a skilled position, and will usually demand more money.
Not everyone has the capacity to make it through college.
It’s definitely not a perfect system and you’re absolutely right that it significantly favors people with strong support and safety nets, especially those of a financial nature.
That being said it’s a very easy shorthand for a company to take and is reliable enough to keep using it, just like how financial institutions in the US use SSNs as private identifiers because it’s easier and cheaper than running and supporting their own systems/assessments and mostly works well enough
The SSN system is one of the more moronic things the US does, which is really saying something.
I’ll rephrase it to show flaw: Schools favours the rich, who can afford it and I don’t think literate people are better at planning their future.
I’ve grown rather cynical of corp-speak lately, and I’ve heard this line before.
Whether said overtly or not, at least nowadays I’d be willing to bet a degree is used as a positive indicator that the candidate is likely in debt, will do anything for a job, and therefore will stick around and put up with almost anything for less wages, because they lack leverage.
They’re therefore cheaper to hire than an independent individual that might exercise their freedom to leave if they’re not treated with respect.
This might also explain why folks with high level degrees are constantly called “overqualified” and ghosted.