Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a person has received a formal education, or maybe instead has YEARS of on-the-job training, or maybe a combination of both, and they find themselves unemployed, should they interview for and take a job that does not require either?
Like as in a 2 year AA or 4 year BA graduate taking a High School diploma or G.E.D. required job, or an entry level or "will train" job.
Is it fair to another unemployed who couldn't get the degree or on-the-job training and has less choices? Everyone wants a job, but should those degreed people "play uneducated" or hold their ground?
If a person has received a formal education, or maybe instead has YEARS of on-the-job training, or maybe a combination of both, and they find themselves unemployed, should they interview for and take a job that does not require either?
Like as in a 2 year AA or 4 year BA graduate taking a High School diploma or G.E.D. required job, or an entry level or "will train" job.
Is it fair to another unemployed who couldn't get the degree or on-the-job training and has less choices? Everyone wants a job, but should those degreed people "play uneducated" or hold their ground?
Why not? If they need money then take whatever job you can until the one you're most qualified comes along. I'm confused, are you saying it is beneath an educated person to accept such a job or are you saying an educated person shouldn't be taking a low education job from low education people?
Why not? If they need money then take whatever job you can until the one you're most qualified comes along. I'm confused, are you saying it is beneath an educated person to accept such a job or are you saying an educated person shouldn't be taking a low education job from low education people?
If a person has received a formal education, or maybe instead has YEARS of on-the-job training, or maybe a combination of both, and they find themselves unemployed, should they interview for and take a job that does not require either?
Like as in a 2 year AA or 4 year BA graduate taking a High School diploma or G.E.D. required job, or an entry level or "will train" job.
Is it fair to another unemployed who couldn't get the degree or on-the-job training and has less choices? Everyone wants a job, but should those degreed people "play uneducated" or hold their ground?
That is irrelevant. One should do what they need to ensure that there is a roof over one's head, food on the table, and whatever bills one has are paid...
You're assuming the person with the education is more qualified.
Suppose we have two applicants for a labor intesive job that neither has done before. If applicant A is a college grad that has spent his entire life with a nose in book and applicant B is Gunther that never made it out of sixth grade I'm probably going to hire Gunther. The mere fact I don't have to listen to Gunther whine and cry about his new job instead of working makes him better qualified.
OK, I'll reword it. Certain delivery companies for example will hire delivery/packaging people, but require a 1 week post hire training period, which they pay for on an hourly basis. Six people apply for every position open.
The person who has no intention of staying if they are offered a job more in line with their years of experience (and/or with Master's Degree) in a few months when the market picks up is chosen. The person with no prior experience or formal education, who would have made a career of delivery in the same company has to keep trying with another company if the few other jobs they could qualify for open. They can't get a job without experience and can't get experience without a job.
So your saying, as I understand it, pretty much "screw em, it is a dog eat dog world". Right?
So your saying, as I understand it, pretty much "screw em, it is a dog eat dog world". Right?
Correct and rightly so.
Quote:
who would have made a career of delivery in the same company
This would be one of the things an employer is going to consider, training employees is pretty expensive and the employer offering the job is going to consider how long the prospective employee is going to be with them. There's a lot of people out there who are not going to get hired because they are overly educated. That degree may actually be a hindrance getting a job which goes back to "dog eat dog".
OK, I'll reword it. Certain delivery companies for example will hire delivery/packaging people, but require a 1 week post hire training period, which they pay for on an hourly basis. Six people apply for every position open.
The person who has no intention of staying if they are offered a job more in line with their years of experience (and/or with Master's Degree) in a few months when the market picks up is chosen. The person with no prior experience or formal education, who would have made a career of delivery in the same company has to keep trying with another company if the few other jobs they could qualify for open. They can't get a job without experience and can't get experience without a job.
So your saying, as I understand it, pretty much "screw em, it is a dog eat dog world". Right?
In the above situation, I doubt a good employer would hire someone with such an advanced degree for a delivery job over a less educated person. Smart employer would consider the less educated person as a potential long term employee while the highly educated person as a potential short term employee. HOWEVER! How one presents themself to the employer could make or break the job interview. If all the less educated people show up looking grungy by the employer's standards and speak in broken slurring english the way I hear some teens and twentysomethings do today then absolutely would he higher the better educated person. He's going to want someone who took the time to show respect to the job by arriving looking ready to work and communicating clearly with the employer. In my teen years I took a class on job interview. You show up for class dressed and ready for a job interview. The interview is video taped. The instructor goes over the video with you to point out what you did wrong and what you did right. I saw myself doing things with my body language and how I talked that I didn't realize I had been doing. How you do your hair, how you shave or trim your beard and moustach, the condition of your fingernails, how much cologne/perfume you wear, how clearly you spoke, did you use any curse words during the interview, did you make good eye contact, and how you dress goes a long way in helping to get a job. The application gets you to the interview. How you present yourself gets you the job or gets you back out on the street again.
There are a lot of scenarios that could apply here but as I understand your post, your question is generally about ethics on the part of the applicants? In general I would say that, if there is only one job and two or more applicants with varying degrees of education and experience, it is simply a case of which applicant is better suited to the job. This is a decision made by the hiring agent and not one made by the applicants so I fail to see how ethics on the part of the applicants applies.
The OP demonstrates one of the very reasons to get a higher education: It gives you an advantage (in most situations).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
