Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2023, 08:48 AM
 
12,836 posts, read 9,037,151 times
Reputation: 34894

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Could it be because of the dramatic increase in college tuition, that more and more students had to choose colleges based on financial reasons rather than academic rigor.
I understand that was the choice you made, I'm not following your logic of how it applies. If you assume that people stayed local for their in state schools, that still means there would be graduates of schools like TAMU & GT & Michigan and a host of others available to recruit from.

While I can't pinpoint the driving event, in some ways it seems to follow the rule of:

A's hire A's. B's hire C's. C's hire D's. And sometimes by accident an A will slip up and hire a B. Then once the B's are in there, the downward process begins. The Good Ol Boy/Girl network takes over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2023, 10:57 AM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
My understanding was that the pay was just abysmal at that time. I had a friend whose father worked as either at NASA or one of the contractor agencies at that time and while it sounded like he did exciting stuff during the time we were building the shuttles and a lot of satellites, his family did not have a very comfortable lifestyle. I think he ultimately decided it was better to go work in telecom for the private sector. FWIW, this person did go to a Big Ten school for engineering. It sounds like the difference in QOL was tremendous.
That makes sense. The general stereotype is that the private sector provides better salary, and the public sector provides better benefits and better work-life balance. Based on the OP's posts, it does not sound like his agency really offers work-life balance. Assuming that's accurate, it would be a hard sell to attract the best talent offering a public sector salary with private sector work-life balance. If you are going to give up the work-life balance, may as well go for the higher salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 11:29 AM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
I understand that was the choice you made, I'm not following your logic of how it applies. If you assume that people stayed local for their in state schools, that still means there would be graduates of schools like TAMU & GT & Michigan and a host of others available to recruit from.
What I mean is that students are increasingly forced to choose college based on financial considerations rather than academic rigor. So there will be a lot of students with potential who were under-challeged academically in college. And perhaps survived weedout processes that were more based on compliance to silly rules rather than academic rigor. Also, the people who are hiring will know that what college somebody graduated from is more based on their financial situation rather than their academic ability, and not take their choice of college into much consideration.

Quote:
While I can't pinpoint the driving event, in some ways it seems to follow the rule of:

A's hire A's. B's hire C's. C's hire D's.
Why do you think it is that the A's hire other A's, but B's and C's hire people one step below themselves? And who hires the B's?

What I've mostly heard (and you won't like hearing this) is that the A students work for C students (not a typo), and the B students work for the government.

Quote:
And sometimes by accident an A will slip up and hire a B. Then once the B's are in there, the downward process begins. The Good Ol Boy/Girl network takes over.
If your premise above is correct, then that makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 11:31 AM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
That's what's so sad. When first started, we did have top talent. There's a photo of the original leadership on the wall in our main conference room. A virtual Who's Who in this field. Sometime in the 80s/90s that changed. I haven't been able to pinpoint the driving event but we began drinking our own bathwater/believing our own image. We stopped learning.

I'm not sure how much of our management got their eyes opened. Most of them have the same belief that's shown by a lot of commentors here on CD -- that it doesn't matter where someone got a degree. They don't recognize the difference in talent.
You won't like hearing this either, but perhaps it's because employers (especially in the public sector) these days are more interested in the color of your skin and your gender, rather than your ability to do the job. And, by focusing on "corporate fit" (or the equivalent in the public sector) and stupid personality tests, they basically find people who look different but think the same way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 01:56 PM
 
12,836 posts, read 9,037,151 times
Reputation: 34894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
What I mean is that students are increasingly forced to choose college based on financial considerations rather than academic rigor. So there will be a lot of students with potential who were under-challeged academically in college. And perhaps survived weedout processes that were more based on compliance to silly rules rather than academic rigor. Also, the people who are hiring will know that what college somebody graduated from is more based on their financial situation rather than their academic ability, and not take their choice of college into much consideration.
.
The people doing the hiring really don't give a rat's rear about your financial reasons for picking a college. Either they care about the academic rigor or they don't. They aren't getting into trying to guess if you were over challenged or under challenged or the rules were silly or not. They really just don't care about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Why do you think it is that the A's hire other A's, but B's and C's hire people one step below themselves? And who hires the B's?
.
When they say A's hire A's, they're not talking about grades but performance/talent. Top talent hires other top talent. They aren't worried about hiring someone smarter than them. In fact they surround themselves with smart people. Lower performers (the B's so to speak) are worried about their own ego. Have to be the smartest person in the room and all that. So they hire people who aren't as talented to protect their own egos. Most of us have had at some time or another a boss who was afraid that we were better than him. Those stories pop up fairly often over in the work forum.

Sometimes the B's do a good job of putting on a show and get hired. Odds are that will eventually happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
What I've mostly heard (and you won't like hearing this) is that the A students work for C students (not a typo), and the B students work for the government.
Why would I not like hearing that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
You won't like hearing this either, but perhaps it's because employers (especially in the public sector) these days are more interested in the color of your skin and your gender, rather than your ability to do the job. And, by focusing on "corporate fit" (or the equivalent in the public sector) and stupid personality tests, they basically find people who look different but think the same way.
Again, why would I not like hearing that? Yep, I know it's out there. What I care about is hiring talent, I don't about someone's skin color, or their sex, or who they sleep with. And neither do the folks I've been on hiring panels with. It's been years since we've done a face-to-face interview. Most are over the phone. Even if someone in our own office applies for a job, they interview over the phone to keep things even. We can't see skin color through a phone. All we go on is the resume, the academics, and the answers to the questions we ask them and the questions they ask us.

As for "fit,"' that is important. You have to work on a team. Someone who can't get along with coworkers won't be able to perform very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 02:53 PM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
The people doing the hiring really don't give a rat's rear about your financial reasons for picking a college. Either they care about the academic rigor or they don't. They aren't getting into trying to guess if you were over challenged or under challenged or the rules were silly or not. They really just don't care about that.
And that is why they don't care about what college you attended, nor the grades that you got in college.

Quote:
When they say A's hire A's, they're not talking about grades but performance/talent. Top talent hires other top talent. They aren't worried about hiring someone smarter than them. In fact they surround themselves with smart people. Lower performers (the B's so to speak) are worried about their own ego. Have to be the smartest person in the room and all that. So they hire people who aren't as talented to protect their own egos. Most of us have had at some time or another a boss who was afraid that we were better than him. Those stories pop up fairly often over in the work forum.

Sometimes the B's do a good job of putting on a show and get hired. Odds are that will eventually happen.
That all makes sense.

Quote:
Why would I not like hearing that?
Because you seem to beleive that performance at work is directly correlated with performance in school, and, rightly or wrongly, that is not the case.

Quote:
Again, why would I not like hearing that? Yep, I know it's out there. What I care about is hiring talent, I don't about someone's skin color, or their sex, or who they sleep with. And neither do the folks I've been on hiring panels with.
So no affirmative action?

Quote:
It's been years since we've done a face-to-face interview. Most are over the phone. Even if someone in our own office applies for a job, they interview over the phone to keep things even. We can't see skin color through a phone. All we go on is the resume, the academics, and the answers to the questions we ask them and the questions they ask us.
And for affirmative action purposes, you are, rightly or wrongly, legally required to ask about race and gender, although it can legally be left blank.

Quote:
As for "fit,"' that is important. You have to work on a team. Someone who can't get along with coworkers won't be able to perform very well.
But why is somebody a poor fit for a job because of what they choose to eat for breakfast, or because of what music they choose to listen to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 03:11 PM
 
12,836 posts, read 9,037,151 times
Reputation: 34894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
And that is why they don't care about what college you attended, nor the grades that you got in college.
I said "either they care about academic rigor or they don't." You're assuming they all don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Because you seem to beleive that performance at work is directly correlated with performance in school, and, rightly or wrongly, that is not the case.
There's a pretty good correlation. If I'm hiring someone, why should I assume someone who has not shown good performance in school will suddenly become a top performer? Or vice versa? I'm sure you can find some exception out there, but hiring managers don't have time to look for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
So no affirmative action?

And for affirmative action purposes, you are, rightly or wrongly, legally required to ask about race and gender, although it can legally be left blank.
?
No mandatory hires. And No, as a hiring manager, I can NOT ask about race and gender. HR might track that, but the hiring manager doesn't see it. Nor would I want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
But why is somebody a poor fit for a job because of what they choose to eat for breakfast, or because of what music they choose to listen to?
I'm not sure where you're going with that one. You'll have to expand on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 05:46 PM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
I said "either they care about academic rigor or they don't." You're assuming they all don't.
And I explained why most wouldn’t care.

Quote:
There's a pretty good correlation. If I'm hiring someone, why should I assume someone who has not shown good performance in school will suddenly become a top performer? Or vice versa? I'm sure you can find some exception out there, but hiring managers don't have time to look for them.
I still see grades as more of a random lottery than anything else. In any case, if A students work for C students, it looks like I’m right that grades are not a predictor of work performance. Opposite if anything.

Quote:
No mandatory hires. And No, as a hiring manager, I can NOT ask about race and gender. HR might track that, but the hiring manager doesn't see it. Nor would I want to.
In NY, it’s basically impossible for a white male to get hired at a public sector job, unless he has military service or a doctoral level degree.

Quote:
I'm not sure where you're going with that one. You'll have to expand on it.
Because two of the common personality test questions are, what do you eat for breakfast, and what type of music do you listen to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2023, 08:09 AM
 
12,836 posts, read 9,037,151 times
Reputation: 34894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post

I still see grades as more of a random lottery than anything else. In any case, if A students work for C students, it looks like I’m right that grades are not a predictor of work performance. Opposite if anything.
.
Or perhaps, at least historically before grade inflation, there were more C students than A students. But if you'll notice, I wasn't talking about grades, but performance. A 3.75 from Upper Somewhere State Tech doesn't tell me anything. An Eagle or Gold Star Scout tells me more about the person than the grade. What projects they did, and what organizations they belong to, tell me more than GPA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2023, 09:01 AM
 
6,985 posts, read 7,042,469 times
Reputation: 4357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
Or perhaps, at least historically before grade inflation, there were more C students than A students. But if you'll notice, I wasn't talking about grades, but performance. A 3.75 from Upper Somewhere State Tech doesn't tell me anything. An Eagle or Gold Star Scout tells me more about the person than the grade. What projects they did, and what organizations they belong to, tell me more than GPA.
Ok, but not everybody is interested in the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, or whatever they're calling them these days. I didn't even realize the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts existed at the college level.

Where I think that we and most others agree is that, all other things being equal, is that a 4.0 student will likely be a better performer than a 3.0 student, and a 3.0 student will likely be better than a 2.0 student, etc. Where I think the disagreement happens is when comparing a 4.0 student to a 3.98 student, or a 3.0 student to a 2.98 student. I would say that difference is more random chance than anything. But in academia and medicine, people act as if it's a major and infallible difference. But everybody outside of academia has, at some point, gotten a B that should have been an A (or an F that should have been a D), and saw somebody less smart than themselves and who worked less hard than themselves get a higher GPA, and get into a better college, or have parents with more money who were able to afford a better college, or had parents with less money who were able to get financial aid to a better college. And I think that causes people to dismiss GPA and college choice as being meaningless.

You are right about grade inflation. What it really does is cause the grades at the very top to be decided by basically a random lottery of who gets the easy teachers vs who gets that one hard teacher who doesn't use grade inflation. As I've said before, it causes grades, at least at the top, to be decided by noise rather than signal. But that's not a concept that many people understand. I can understand liberal arts people not understanding that concept. But the only reason why people in academia and medicine don't understand that concept is because those fields are filled with people who got the 4.0 rather than the 3.98, so they still believe in the just world fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top