Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-26-2020, 01:29 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,894,163 times
Reputation: 8742

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertFisher View Post
Most comments suggest in the long run education credential doesn't matter. This is my understanding as well.

Just to test this theory, consider our two candidates just finished grad school and are now applying for the same job. Everything else being equal, how would you appraise these two candidates?
...and in the short run it does. After 10 years of business experience, it doesn't matter. That's a long time if you're 24 years old.

I have been a manager with hiring responsibility. I would vote in favor of moving up - University of New Hampshire then Wharton, or CSU Northridge then Stanford. That implies you are in the top 5-10% of the undergraduate class, maybe even higher. Undergrad choices often regard parental circumstances, but when you go to grad school you are fully adult and typically more serious than you were at 18.

Still, a GREAT undergraduate school - top 15 - followed by a middling graduate education would also be OK because you have to excel at a young age (something I respect) to get into a great undergraduate school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2020, 01:33 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,894,163 times
Reputation: 8742
Quote:
Originally Posted by rummage View Post
Someone said something on TV, that you don't recall their name, and you want us to comment on the validity of the statement that you weren't really paying attention to? How can we trust what you think was said was even accurate.

Anyway...

With my vast years of corporate experience, I can tell you the employer doesn't care where you went to college, just that you got a degree from an accredited one and hopefully in the field they hired you for. The proof of this is looking at the profiles for people in the company. There are people who are in middle management and upper management that went to some colleges I never heard of before. Seriously, I never heard of the college where they got a graduate degree. It seems major stupid to spend money, time and effort in getting a masters or doctorate from a college that people don't even know what state it is in, but people do this, and management obviously hired them and they are earning six-figures. You'd think everyone who graduated Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., would only be hired by major corporation that could afford higher salaries, yet they hire them from colleges few people heard of. So the proof is right there, it doesn't matter for the vast majority of jobs to be successful in a large company where you went to college.
That may be true when trying to staff a corporation with large numbers of people, but I work in the investment field where employees are highly paid, very smart, and there aren't many of them. So we looked for Ivy League, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, etc. The occasional A student at Flagship State (in a good state like Wisconsin or Virginia) who was a research assistant for a well-known professor would also make the cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 06:35 AM
 
Location: interior Alaska
6,895 posts, read 5,830,845 times
Reputation: 23410
I would think it's more about context. If you went to a top undergrad program, moved for a job, and then enrolled in a local ho-hum university because it was possible to do their grad program while working (due to geography, scheduling, online options, etc.) I doubt any employer is going to ding you for that. Such a career path is common in a number of fields. On the other hand, if you went to a top undergrad program, then enrolled in an unimpressive grad program as a full-time student, one might question why you couldn't or wouldn't try for a more competitive one.

Another thing to consider is that there are universities that aren't Big Names but have particular graduate programs that are very well-regarded in their fields, particularly for certain niche areas. So if you attended one of those, and were seeking a career in that area, that can help you more than having the prettiest name on your diploma. There are also fields of study where you pretty much just have to go wherever you can get funding, and I think anyone in those fields understands that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Brentwood, Tennessee
49,932 posts, read 59,761,388 times
Reputation: 98359
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertFisher View Post

Just to test this theory, consider our two candidates just finished grad school and are now applying for the same job. Everything else being equal, how would you appraise these two candidates?
Everything else is never equal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 10:52 AM
 
22,011 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
in my field and in my career
an employer is most impressed with relevant work experience
and recent professional references
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 10:56 AM
 
22,011 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
even if it is someone's "first job" right out of school (grad or undergrad, doesn't matter)
my experience has been that an employer is less interested in the academics, and more interested in the candidate's accomplishments, problem solving, initiative, skill set, as evidenced by non-academic elements

school does not indicate whether someone will be a good employee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 11:34 AM
 
12,101 posts, read 17,042,569 times
Reputation: 15764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
even if it is someone's "first job" right out of school (grad or undergrad, doesn't matter)
my experience has been that an employer is less interested in the academics, and more interested in the candidate's accomplishments, problem solving, initiative, skill set, as evidenced by non-academic elements

school does not indicate whether someone will be a good employee.
What else would you have to rely on with someone with no experience?

4 years at a good school and a good GPA is a lot more of a reliable indicator than how well someone can BS their way though an interview.

Honestly, most employers are out for one thing ... to make as much money and profits as they can.

To that end, it would 'make sense' to hire someone who had the ambition to apply to and get into the best schools.

To me, the disconnect between success in school and success at work is a disconnect in motivation.

Students can be very good students because they envision a hypothetical future of an exciting job, and working hard to do something meaningful. Or they may just like the classes.

Work is more typically rote tasks and performing those tasks in such a way that maximizes the profits of your employer. So, people who have a philosophy of 'I work for $' often do perform better when they may not have been good students. But it would be difficult to tell who those people are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 12:22 PM
 
12,711 posts, read 8,929,449 times
Reputation: 34712
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba View Post
What else would you have to rely on with someone with no experience?

....
It's pretty simple actually. Let's say you get 100 resumes to look at (not uncommon) for an Aerospace Engineer. You can eliminate half because they don't have the right education to qualify or just plain have a sloppy resume (you'd be surprised how bad some can be). Half the rest take themselves out of consideration by stating their objective is not the job they're applying for. (Why would I waste time and a position to hire someone who plans to leave as soon as possible?)

That gets the list down to about 25. Read those and it's pretty obvious who really want to work in the field and who has a more "don't care" attitude. They will have cookie cutter resumes that lists their classes and little else. But about 10 or so will have these extras that set them apart:

a. Leader in their student section of their professional association (shows leadership, initiative, and bigger picture thinking).
b. Research as an undergrad. Not an assigned "senior project" but were part of an actual research team. Shows the initiative to seek out research opportunities and that they were thought well enough to be selected on a team.
c. Extra curriculars.
d. Previous evidence of leadership like Eagle Scout or Gold Star.

Some combination of these extras shows someone who is willing to take on more than the minimum and go the extra mile to accomplish some goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 01:01 PM
 
22,011 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba View Post
What else would you have to rely on with someone with no experience?
4 years at a good school and a good GPA is a lot more of a reliable indicator than how well someone can BS their way though an interview.
Honestly, most employers are out for one thing ... to make as much money and profits as they can.To that end, it would 'make sense' to hire someone who had the ambition to apply to and get into the best schools.
To me, the disconnect between success in school and success at work is a disconnect in motivation.
Students can be very good students because they envision a hypothetical future of an exciting job, and working hard to do something meaningful. Or they may just like the classes.

Work is more typically rote tasks and performing those tasks in such a way that maximizes the profits of your employer. So, people who have a philosophy of 'I work for $' often do perform better when they may not have been good students. But it would be difficult to tell who those people are.
plenty to look at, and nothing to do with academics.
degrees are a dime a dozen. 4.0s or close to it are a dime a dozen. good schools are a dime a dozen.

employees want someone who will listen, who can work as part of a team, who has the humbleness to admit they know nothing and are teach-able, someone who does not have a snotty attitude, is not a know it all, is not full of themself, is willing to learn, is willing to share credit, has emotional maturity, stability, reliability.

and no it is not about money at any cost. it is about retention and contributing to a quality product, workplace, and customer relations.

one segment of the industry where i work, is hard to recruit and hard to retain due to labor shortage of skilled professionals, so always looking at ways to address this. one facility i was at came up with the very innovative concept of recruiting high school students. Yes, high school students, we brought them in as juniors in high school, worked around their high school schedule, provided training, provided a paying job, provided them with full time work when they graduated, and continued to pay for their schooling if they wanted to get an undergraduate degree or additional credentials. All paid for by the employer, and all the while with paid employment in addition, and all the while with job advancement upon completion.

When these "high school students" were compared long term with success on the job, retention, skilled labor force, and quality care, they consistently outperformed those who had years of experience on the job, were trained elsewhere and already had undergraduate degrees. it was amazing. a program that was seen as desperate and rogue, is now a best practice model that is being implemented nationally. it is very competitive to get in, and there are people vying to get their own kids in the program which has a now very long wait list.

The reason they were seen as more successful is that we got them young enough that we could train them, they were high achievers, they were willing to listen and not think they know it all, and we could assure they were trained at a level that was compliant with high standards. in short, they hadn't developed bad habits and a bad attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2020, 01:59 PM
 
12,101 posts, read 17,042,569 times
Reputation: 15764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
plenty to look at, and nothing to do with academics.
degrees are a dime a dozen. 4.0s or close to it are a dime a dozen. good schools are a dime a dozen.

employees want someone who will listen, who can work as part of a team, who has the humbleness to admit they know nothing and are teach-able, someone who does not have a snotty attitude, is not a know it all, is not full of themself, is willing to learn, is willing to share credit, has emotional maturity, stability, reliability.

and no it is not about money at any cost. it is about retention and contributing to a quality product, workplace, and customer relations.

one segment of the industry where i work, is hard to recruit and hard to retain due to labor shortage of skilled professionals, so always looking at ways to address this. one facility i was at came up with the very innovative concept of recruiting high school students. Yes, high school students, we brought them in as juniors in high school, worked around their high school schedule, provided training, provided a paying job, provided them with full time work when they graduated, and continued to pay for their schooling if they wanted to get an undergraduate degree or additional credentials. All paid for by the employer, and all the while with paid employment in addition, and all the while with job advancement upon completion.

When these "high school students" were compared long term with success on the job, retention, skilled labor force, and quality care, they consistently outperformed those who had years of experience on the job, were trained elsewhere and already had undergraduate degrees. it was amazing. a program that was seen as desperate and rogue, is now a best practice model that is being implemented nationally. it is very competitive to get in, and there are people vying to get their own kids in the program which has a now very long wait list.

The reason they were seen as more successful is that we got them young enough that we could train them, they were high achievers, they were willing to listen and not think they know it all, and we could assure they were trained at a level that was compliant with high standards. in short, they hadn't developed bad habits and a bad attitude.
Believe it or not, I actually don't disagree. I think it would be better to start kids working out of HS too.

But that has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about 2 candidates who have masters degrees.
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 > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.

© 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