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.
What is the difference between an old, say >15 year old degree in a field like finance or a more generic degree like liberal arts if the candidate has enough experience to demonstrate understanding of applied concepts to the position and work to back it up? Increasingly I find my searches keep coming up with prefer this or that degree but my thought is over time, the actual degree is worth less and regardless of the specifics, experience should really take precedent. I can understand ideally, a company would want a relatively new graduate with a couple years experience say directly in finance or business but in instances where they look for 7-10 years, I don't understand the degree bias. What do you guys look at when hiring or applying?
Experience trumps the degree in later years. That's why people who make career changes have difficulty getting back into their old careers. I know people who do not have colleges degrees and work in jobs that require college degrees. I'm thinking of engineering and computer careers specifically. In engineering, they started out as CAD/draftsmen and were promoted throughout the years to project managers, traveling the world for decades. And for computer programming, college degrees literally did not exist when they went to school. It started out as a trade school profession. As long as they continue to have experience, their experience is relevant. That's why jobs say degree/experience. Most companies weigh the two for exceptional candidates who lack one or the other.
new graduates are more malleable. and for the most part, unless you're super good, chances are you will need time and guidance to gradually fit into your job, just like new graduates. Not to mention similar background is better for team dynamic. The point is skills are important but not nearly as important as most people think. Most people with normal intelligence and right attitude could be taught to do the job, especially for large companies, what's more important is if you fit into your team, in term of background, in term of age, in term of personality, etc. College graduates share more with each other than with people without such experience at such critical important period of life, as a result, they're more willing to hire college graduates simply because they understand each other better and are more comfortable with each other.
new graduates are more malleable. and for the most part, unless you're super good, chances are you will need time and guidance to gradually fit into your job, just like new graduates. Not to mention similar background is better for team dynamic. The point is skills are important but not nearly as important as most people think. Most people with normal intelligence and right attitude could be taught to do the job, especially for large companies, what's more important is if you fit into your team, in term of background, in term of age, in term of personality, etc. College graduates share more with each other than with people without such experience at such critical important period of life, as a result, they're more willing to hire college graduates simply because they understand each other better and are more comfortable with each other.
That is a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
Just like saying young adults right out of college are the most difficult employees. They don't know reality. They're living in a fantasy world. Their work ethic sucks. Etc.
Just like saying young adults right out of college are the most difficult employees. They don't know reality. They're living in a fantasy world. Their work ethic sucks. Etc.
See how that goes?
I am pretty sure the age "Protective Class" for age discrimination is 40 and up. In other words, you cannot discriminate for age against those 40 and up. No law about those under 40 as far as age discrimination.
I am pretty sure the age "Protective Class" for age discrimination is 40 and up. In other words, you cannot discriminate for age against those 40 and up. No law about those under 40 as far as age discrimination.
Of course. But eatfastnoodle's post was riddled with discrimination against protected class of over 40 since NOBODY over 40 would meet eatfastnoodle's hiring criteria. I was merely offering an alternate view of young adults workers, not implying those younger workers are in a protected class.
Education is important until you have enough experience whereby experience is the primary criteria considered. How long is that? It's variable, depending on the company and hiring manager, but generally if you have at least 5 to 8 years experience in a specific field, even if your degree doesn't match, then you should have a decent shot at a position. That said, if there is a candidate with more experience and a better education, they may have an advantage.
And for computer programming, college degrees literally did not exist when they went to school. It started out as a trade school profession.
Well, I am 60 years old and a retired software engineer. I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from 1973, and I don't recall ever working with any developers who did not have a minimum of at least a four-year degree, with many educated at the Masters or Doctorate level. I certainly don't know any engineers that attended a trade school! In fact, before computer science degrees were offered, most of us were either E.E. or math majors. "Programming" has evolved into a generic term, for the most part grossly misunderstood, that often includes people who do little more than data entry or design web sites.
My son just graduated with a B.S. in Software Engineering, and the recruiters in Boston would not even look at a resume from someone with experience but no formal degree. Very few companies would hire someone without the degree. The last few companies I worked for would not even have considered it.
My last mgr at big huge public company was 10 years my junior, had no college degree, though he did apparently have a military background and was promoted within the company to his peter principle management position. He's been with the company going on 15 years.
I, with 20+ years of experience, an MBA, ended up reporting to this yahoo. He laid me off less than 3 years later...the only person on his staff with a masters degree (and probably the oldest person too).
They are out there in droves. Lots of companies do not care as much about education as you would think. And in some cases, managers appear to be "anti" education if they don't have the degrees. Just sayin'
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.
