The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: nancyjnelson on May 05, 2019, 02:27:02 AM
-
Stripping the bachelor's degree requirement from many positions would be a game changer for lots of people. This article focuses on coding jobs, but it's easy to see how it could be applied across the employment spectrum. It can change lives. To quote one newly employed individual, "I’m already looking to buy a house, which I never thought I would even have. It’s only been six months, but I’ve managed to save ten thousand bucks.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/need-college-degree-get-job-these-companies-say-skills-matter-n1001526
-
My cousin started college as a comp sci major and dropped out. He had to work his way up more slowly doing stuff like tier 1 tech support, but he now has a "real" computer programming job and makes 150k a year.
I'm glad to see this shift occurring.
-
Good. Degrees aren't everything. They help with plenty of jobs but for plenty of others the requirement is just silly.
-
When my VP mentioned how hard it was to find people to fill positions I almost laughed. This is exactly why - we are not rocket scientists, a degee is much less important than a desire to learn and a good attitude. I really doubt my company (or surround companies here) will even consider stripping a 4 year degree as a requirement though.
-
It would be great to see more of this - focus on specific skills applicable to the job, as opposed to degrees. Sadly there's a long way to go in some spheres - particularly in some organizations with entrenched R&D communities.
I was on an interview committee for a position at my company a year or two ago. I had a discussion with the hiring manager who essentially said to me "I want someone that can replicate your skillset, so that you have the freedom to move on to bigger and better things". (I did a lot of work for this particular manager, but was not a direct report). My response: "You do realize that if you had a carbon copy of me, that clone wouldn't even get an interview because he didn't meet the listed education requirements, right?" The job description said M.S. minimum, Ph.D preferred. At that time I had a B.S., and was still working on completing my Masters' degree.
Love the concept though. If candidates can demonstrate that they have the requisite skills they should be considered, rather than the "(insert degree here) or GTFO" attitude that some organizations(including all too frequently, my own) have. It's better for both prospective employees and employers.
-
I see degrees as an cheap and easy way to sort job candidates...
I don't like it but I think some companies use them that way.
-
I don't like it but I think some companies use them that way.
Absolutely - and job seekers realize this. I believe this contributed to the market for "for profit" universities, such as DeVry, University of Phoenix, etc. People just wanted to get that "piece of paper".
-
I've only been involved in one hire but in looking through about ten resumes a degree was one factor. Any degree shows an ability to finish a pretty large project. In addition it demonstrates motivation to grow and improve yourself.
-
I have been hired to numerous jobs despite them typically needing degrees. Fights with HR were had, requirements were modified.
When I was hiring, I also changed the requirements, looked for more relevant skills, and implemented a basic skills test. The team had been focusing on the wrong criteria before. I hired 2 people (1 temp, 1 employee) without degrees and without experience in our specific industry. They both worked out really well.
-
"You do realize that if you had a carbon copy of me, that clone wouldn't even get an interview because he didn't meet the listed education requirements, right?"
It has been noted that if they could time travel from 1980 to today, Richard Branson and Bill Gates would not be able to get jobs in their own companies :)
-
During the last four years of my career as a U.S. diplomat, I served in the HR department interviewing hundreds of candidates. The Department of State has a robust hiring process for Foreign Service officers that includes a written exam, writing exercises, and an all-day oral assessment with situational questions, one-on-one interviews and group role-play projects, etc., as well as medical, security and suitability clearances. This hiring system was developed over the years to enable it to select the best candidates - about 250 annually - from an initial pool of 20,000.
The only educational requirement is a high school degree.
That said, very few applicants did not have a college degree because the application process favored those qualities (world knowledge, cultural adaptability, good oral communication skills, great writing skills, etc) that are often found in those individuals who choose to go to college.
The important thing was to select the individual based on his/her results - not on the path they took to get there.
-
I see degrees as an cheap and easy way to sort job candidates...
I don't like it but I think some companies use them that way.
A degree (any degree) with decent marks from a program that is academically stringent is an easy proxy for intelligence/aptitude.
If I wasn't using the degree I'd be wanting to see SAT/LSAT scores or something else of a similar vein.
For a job that does not require a brainy person, a degree is irrelevant. But for a professional role, I want to know the person's intelligence and drive. While a degree is only an approximation at best and while there are numerous confounding factors. it's still a handy tool. Handier, I would argue, than an in-person interview - the latter is more easily confounded by personality and extroversion.
The alternative would be for me to administer everyone a verbal and logical IQ test - that is illegal in some areas, and frowned upon in many others.
-
Bryan Caplan wrote a book arguing that most of the benefits (He estimated about 80%) of the college degree come from signalling (intelligence, conscientiousness and conformity)
https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp/0691174652
I don't agree with all he says. I think he underplays the significance of Griggs vs Duke Power, but it's an interesting read.
-
The alternative would be for me to administer everyone a verbal and logical IQ test - that is illegal in some areas, and frowned upon in many others.
Why an IQ test and not a skills test to measure how well they can perform relevant job functions? As I mentioned above, I used that to find excellent candidates who didn't have college degrees. I also got my last job partly because I did well on the skills test, despite not having a degree myself.
-
On a side note, I've always been surprised at a how having a degree has been so entertwined with a view of being successful. So much so I just can't believe how self-conscious a friend of mine is about not having a degree, especially within his own family (all the other brothers went to college, one's a lawyer, etc) when he's now 45, has a wonderful beautiful wife and nice healthy kids, and is in business more successful I'd say than his brothers (even the lawyer has been in and out of work), and he just hit it real big in the start-up options game as a CTO.
I always viewed degrees as (now somewhat ridiculous) hoops to jump thru to get ahead in particular fields and sometimes felt the sucker for having a couple degrees ;-)
-
Hiring is hard. Making a bad hire is really expensive. I've seen managers take reputation hits because of a couple bad hires. "Can't identify talent..." Right or wrong, a college degree is one way to identify someone who can complete something difficult over 3+ years and easier to defend someone who doesn't work out than hiring someone with no degree.
Could we solve some student loan debt by getting ride of degree inflation? Maybe. It really depends on the job/role someone is filling. Anything that can prove skills with something like a portfolio, credentials, or relevant experience would be best hiring off skills instead of a degree. Same thing with internal hires, relevant experience and past working history. Problem is, these are generally skills that take experience, work history, or personal network to acquire. Not something easily achieved by an entry level person**. So how do you identify a good entry level person, why a degree of course!
**It can be done, but it will probably be someone going to a private school that teaches STEM (and can probably afford college) or someone who is exposed to an adult (likely parent) in that industry.
-
In aggregate, I think people spending more time in classrooms is good for the future. It'd be nice if it cost less though.
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
I started my career before embarking on a CS degree. Coding came naturally to me. I loved it, and was super motivated to learn. Started working in tech w/o a degree about age 20 at a reputable publicly traded company. However, just a couple of years in I started to run into a wall of CS related math and theory that was progressively difficult to climb on my own. I also started to meet a small handful of people like me who were further along in their careers. They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
So I swallowed my pride and did the degree. It was one of the best decisions of my life. Learned a ton and it opened up a huge world of opportunity.
Yes, credentialism is rampant. But a better example of this are the many job openings listing a generic college degree, any degree, as a requirement. I mean, if you don't even know which degree(s) you're looking for, how relevant can it possibly be? However, if you want to build a long-term career in any of the STEM fields (including software engineering) then it's worth getting the degree.
-
"You do realize that if you had a carbon copy of me, that clone wouldn't even get an interview because he didn't meet the listed education requirements, right?"
It has been noted that if they could time travel from 1980 to today, Richard Branson and Bill Gates would not be able to get jobs in their own companies :)
True, but they didn't want a job. They wanted to start companies of their own, not help someone else build theirs. There's a world of difference between the two. Put another way: If you think you have the stuff to be the next Branson or Gates then go make your mark on the world and stop worrying about getting hired.
-
The alternative would be for me to administer everyone a verbal and logical IQ test - that is illegal in some areas, and frowned upon in many others.
Why an IQ test and not a skills test to measure how well they can perform relevant job functions? As I mentioned above, I used that to find excellent candidates who didn't have college degrees. I also got my last job partly because I did well on the skills test, despite not having a degree myself.
An IQ test and skills test are very similar. The IQ test has the advantage of being pre-existing, cheap, and easy to administer.
-
The alternative would be for me to administer everyone a verbal and logical IQ test - that is illegal in some areas, and frowned upon in many others.
Why an IQ test and not a skills test to measure how well they can perform relevant job functions? As I mentioned above, I used that to find excellent candidates who didn't have college degrees. I also got my last job partly because I did well on the skills test, despite not having a degree myself.
An IQ test and skills test are very similar. The IQ test has the advantage of being pre-existing, cheap, and easy to administer.
Except, as you mentioned, an IQ test is illegal or frowned upon. A skills test is more relevant to any particular job anyway, and clearly allowable in many situations.
-
Sure, due to the impermissibility of the former I'd happily opt for the latter. But on a conceptual level I think the IQ test is a better option.
To be honest, I suspect there is a very high correlation between any IQ test and a professional skills test anyway. And I think it's ridiculous that you can't test for people's IQ in a workplace setting. (Note that where i live, Australia, there is no such prohibition, and companies routinely test for IQ, though it's usually called psychometric testing instead, but the questions are literally those of a Stanford-Binet test.)
-
Lol, the high IQ people I knew from high school also ended up being the people with the worst work ethic and the "dumber" ones ended up being more successful and having the stable jobs and income (one might even FIRE!). A high IQ does not equal a good employee.
-
I've always thought technical jobs like programming were more along the lines of plumbing or auto mechanics. Mentorship, experience, and a certification seem more appropriate preparation than mandatory Western Literature II classes.
However, another role of a degree is to demonstrate one's ability to complete long-term projects without giving up.
-
Sure, due to the impermissibility of the former I'd happily opt for the latter. But on a conceptual level I think the IQ test is a better option.
To be honest, I suspect there is a very high correlation between any IQ test and a professional skills test anyway. And I think it's ridiculous that you can't test for people's IQ in a workplace setting. (Note that where i live, Australia, there is no such prohibition, and companies routinely test for IQ, though it's usually called psychometric testing instead, but the questions are literally those of a Stanford-Binet test.)
There is literature that one's EQ is a better predictor of success than IQ.
-
One of my ex-girlfriends works for a large company where people traditionally have worked their way up from entry-level positions. But after she started with them, they started slapping degree requirements on all of the jobs that would be a natural step up from her position, essentially trapping her in an entry-level admin role for many years. She was more than qualified for those other roles through her work experience, but since they were deemed "technical" she wasn't even allowed to be considered.
-
I've always thought technical jobs like programming were more along the lines of plumbing or auto mechanics. Mentorship, experience, and a certification seem more appropriate preparation than mandatory Western Literature II classes.
However, another role of a degree is to demonstrate one's ability to complete long-term projects without giving up.
Well it really depends on the specific discipline. "Programming" is such a broad category, and I thing a lot people fail to fully understand the diversity of types of work and of the domains of knowledge involved.
* For instance, "IT" jobs are often based more on certifications than on degrees anyway. Of course some of those cert requirements can be pretty arbitrary themselves, but at least the barriers to entry are smaller and more granular.
* OTOH, some "software engineering" jobs really depend on a lot of theoretical background that's best taught in an academic environment. (On the Gripping Hand, any engineer will tell you that all that theoretical background is just preparation, and you learn actual engineering on the job. I suppose that's why the PE exam system requires work experience before taking the last exam.)
* And then there's things like web design, where it really comes down to a combination of basic aptitude and specific knowledge. That's where "boot camps" and the like come into play, giving you the knowledge of how to use the tools.
The problem in that last case is how to suss out that other component: whether the person has the basic aptitude to be a good designer or developer. That's not something that a few weeks of coursework is likely to tell you. Of course it's also an area where it's possible to build up a portfolio of work on your own time --but even using that as a requirement may disadvantage folks who have to work long hours at non-technical jobs to get by.
Perhaps something like a mentorship models would make sense here. The problem, of course, is that companies always want to save a buck in their quarterly report by cutting out training and trying to hire people who can already do the exact job they need from day one.
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
If you think "real" IT professionals don't use Google every day, you're in for a rude awakening. :D
Sincerely,
A Real IT Professional
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
If you think "real" IT professionals don't use Google every day, you're in for a rude awakening. :D
Sincerely,
A Real IT Professional
From what I hear (as a non IT person), a misapplied google result will fuck up lots of things. Not saying it isn't a great resource, but there has to be some real world background knowledge of how to apply stuff too.
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
If you think "real" IT professionals don't use Google every day, you're in for a rude awakening. :D
Sincerely,
A Real IT Professional
Don't be silly, "real" IT professionals use StackExchange! (When google doesn't work)
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
If you think "real" IT professionals don't use Google every day, you're in for a rude awakening. :D
Sincerely,
A Real IT Professional
Don't be silly, "real" IT professionals use StackExchange! (When google doesn't work)
Or use Google to search StackExchange...
-
While I agree with the overall premise, I'm skeptical that a short-term coding bootcamp is a good launchpad into a Software Engineering career. Yes, my pre-FIRE career was in tech. And yes, I did a CS degree. But I'm FIRE now and have zero interest in going back into the industry, so what I'm about to say isn't motivated by job protectionism.
They all said basically the same thing: If they could go back and do it all over they'd just get the CS degree. True, they were able to pick up what they needed on the job, but it was way harder and they still sensed gaps in their knowledge. This increase in on-the-job learning slowed their career trajectory and they were passed over for promotion by new folks coming in with degrees. In a strong job market it's possible to get hired, but during lean times they were usually the first to be let go, and then getting hired somewhere else was way more difficult. And there was a sense that without the degree they had to re-prove themselves to each new employer.
My DH works at a govt IT dept and his coworkers all use google to solve each and every code they write. The place is well known for its poor pay and morale. Most people with any education or actual coding skills use it as a jumping board (which is what DH is doing while he finishes his CS degree), and the others are just stuck. They will always be googlers making terrible salaries. Its pretty depressing.
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
If you think "real" IT professionals don't use Google every day, you're in for a rude awakening. :D
Sincerely,
A Real IT Professional
From what I hear (as a non IT person), a misapplied google result will fuck up lots of things. Not saying it isn't a great resource, but there has to be some real world background knowledge of how to apply stuff too.
Oh of course. Context matters. You don't just copy-paste some PowerShell script from Stack Overflow and run it on your production servers. You do need to actually know what the hell you're doing, but often that still involves plenty of Google searching.
-
Lol, the high IQ people I knew from high school also ended up being the people with the worst work ethic and the "dumber" ones ended up being more successful and having the stable jobs and income (one might even FIRE!). A high IQ does not equal a good employee.
Can confirm. I have a high IQ, struggled with college on my first attempt (eventually graduated at 30) and have been a pretty lazy employee. I work pretty hard for my own business though.
-
My BS in Math was not very helpful in getting a job in computers/IT. I ended up going overseas and working in Afghanistan to get my foot in the door with IT. What I ended up needing was a couple computer certifications (Sec+ & Win7). Everyone wanted practical experience.
Most of the coworkers had no degrees but had computer certifications (pass a test / get a certification).
Over time as I got more experience & certifications, I went online with WGU dot EDU and got my master’s in computer security. Since then I have constantly increased my skills, experience, certifications, and education. At some point education just becomes a part of the process.
I could have started with no degree. IT is weird that it is hard to get your foot in the door at first. Once you do the doors open quickly.
-
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
Some bootcamp programs are worth it, others not so much. How can one tell the difference? It's difficult to know because it's the wild west and many are profit driven. You know, the same model as DeVry or U of Phoenix where they spend a lot on marketing, astroturfing, and commissioning "studies" which (surprise!) find they have a great ROI. I'm not saying don't do it, but rather YMMV, and do your homework carefully and with a sceptical eye.
-
Those bootcamp programs at least offer ways of learning to solve problems, even if they lack the linear algebra courses.
Some bootcamp programs are worth it, others not so much. How can one tell the difference? It's difficult to know because it's the wild west and many are profit driven. You know, the same model as DeVry or U of Phoenix where they spend a lot on marketing, astroturfing, and commissioning "studies" which (surprise!) find they have a great ROI. I'm not saying don't do it, but rather YMMV, and do your homework carefully and with a sceptical eye.
The ones that are worth it in my opinion for computers also test you after the class is done and you leave with a industry recognized computer certification (CompTia, Microsoft, Linux, ISC2, etc).
-
Much like a high school diploma 50 years ago, a BS or BA now simply says to potential employers, "I am someone who can actually start a project and finish it."
It says nothing about your actual aptitude or skills, but it's still useful in that you've shown you can jump through some hoops, not get in fights with professors or authorities that are bad enough to get you expelled, not knock anyone up/get knocked up and drop out, etc, etc.
There is a fair chance, if you have a bachelor's, that you can at least be trained to do a decent job and that you'll make some effort to do it.
Now, if someone shows up with no degree but super impressive skills and obvious desire/drive, the lack of a degree shouldn't be a problem in theory. For a lot of big companies assessing that just isn't easy to do if you're hiring hundreds or thousands of people every year, so the degree/no degree distinction is a useful screening tool.
C'est la vie. I'd personally like to see both high school and college get quite a bit *harder* to finish so that it's easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. That's not the direction we've been headed for a while, though.
-W
-
Lol, the high IQ people I knew from high school also ended up being the people with the worst work ethic and the "dumber" ones ended up being more successful and having the stable jobs and income (one might even FIRE!). A high IQ does not equal a good employee.
Can confirm. I have a high IQ, struggled with college on my first attempt (eventually graduated at 30) and have been a pretty lazy employee. I work pretty hard for my own business though.
I have a high IQ, had a hard time in college and didn't graduate, and have been a great employee. I would be a terrible business owner. A big reason why I struggled in college was all the independent research projects. I tested really well, learned things quickly, and could do in-class assignments well. But the big papers, that couldn't be done in a couple late night emergency sessions, were tougher.
At my actual jobs, guess how many giant homework assignments I've had? Zero.
I also want to bring up the economic factors that could prevent someone from going to college. I don't think that's been mentioned. Employers could be missing out on great candidates due to that.
-
Sure, due to the impermissibility of the former I'd happily opt for the latter. But on a conceptual level I think the IQ test is a better option.
To be honest, I suspect there is a very high correlation between any IQ test and a professional skills test anyway. And I think it's ridiculous that you can't test for people's IQ in a workplace setting. (Note that where i live, Australia, there is no such prohibition, and companies routinely test for IQ, though it's usually called psychometric testing instead, but the questions are literally those of a Stanford-Binet test.)
There is literature that one's EQ is a better predictor of success than IQ.
But not any published study. In fact, there's not even a standardised "EQ" test that's been normalised.
That said, I think what's called "EQ" is important. If we could test well for it, I' incorporate it too. Some companies now do psychometric testing which attempts to incorporate those aspects.
I think standardised testing is very important. In the absence of it, other signifiers (such as a college degree) are the next best thing. Not because they're useful for identifying top talent (they're not). Not because they're completely socio-economically fair (they're not). But because they are a useful way to ensure that every applicant passes a basic threshold of aptitude/conscientiousness. Then, apply a stricter filter to the applicants not screened out. It's all about numbers.
-
A high IQ does not make you a high performer in your career. Great, you can grasp advanced concepts and learn things... BUT... can you get along with others, can you focus on the task at hand, can you manage your time well, can you see things through to completion, can you see the forest for the trees, etc... I personally know people who are waaaaaaaay smarter than me... and have pretty much eff'ed up their lives because of their lack of non-IQ skills.
College degrees are similar to a point... however, if you earn a reasonably rigorous college degree then there is a fair chance you can demonstrate the ability to learn, some level or work ethic and commitment, write effectively, survive the meat grinder called finals week, deal with a**hole professors (bosses), work in groups, etc. No it is absolutely NOT a guarantee but as others said it is usually a reasonable proxy for work experience. It doesn't guarantee anything when hiring (see Mr. CollegeIsFourMoreYearsOfHighSchool) but in the law of averages it's better than than nothing. And many managers are more concerned with covering their own ass than doing the right thing.
I'm not saying its right... just saying it is what it is.
We absolutely lack a viable apprenticeship culture in the US. We'd be well served to have more alternative learning paths for good careers.
-
True, but they didn't want a job. They wanted to start companies of their own, not help someone else build theirs. There's a world of difference between the two. Put another way: If you think you have the stuff to be the next Branson or Gates then go make your mark on the world and stop worrying about getting hired.
This is true. But do Branson and Gates really want the next Branson or Gates to start a new company and rival them? Wouldn't they rather have that person as an employee than a competitor?
Do they really think that only (say) 1 in 1 million people without degrees have skills useful to a company like theirs? So they are deliberately excluding people with skills... that seems like a less than optimal approach to things.
-
I've seen receptionist job postings from time to time that apparently require a degree, and I seriously don't get how they come up with that as a qualification for a 35K/year position where the job description is "answer phones, act pleasant, and do some simple paperwork". I just roll my eyes. It seems to be extremely rare, anyway.
-
This is true. But do Branson and Gates really want the next Branson or Gates to start a new company and rival them? Wouldn't they rather have that person as an employee than a competitor?
There are less expensive and more practical ways to deal with this problem than hiring everyone. I don't know about Branson, but in Microsoft's hayday Gates was known for poaching the most critical employees from competitors. They'd show up at the target's place of employment with a stretch limo (this was the 90s), champagne, fat signing bonus, and offer them a dream job in their research dept. - basically a playground for nerds. The purpose was less about acquiring talent and more about denying competitors their key personnel. As another example, of the tiny fraction of entrepreneurs that look like they may become successful, just buy them out.
Do they really think that only (say) 1 in 1 million people without degrees have skills useful to a company like theirs? So they are deliberately excluding people with skills... that seems like a less than optimal approach to things.
I don't think they think that, though I can't read minds. It's a search problem where they need to filter through a very high number of candidates to find what they need. Each successive step of the hiring process becomes progressively more expensive, and once a person is hired it's extremely expensive to train that person and even more expensive to fire them if they don't work out.
A large company will often get thousands of applicants for each position. A machine via ML and pattern matching may narrow this down to about 1%. Of those 1% maybe 25% will make it through the initial phone screening. Then maybe 10% of those will make it through onsite interviews, which could be 1 hour interviews with 4-6 engineers plus maybe an hour of each engineer's time to prepare and then write feedback. If the first line filter is too relaxed then a ton of time and effort [read: money] is wasted later in the interview pipeline.
No process is perfect, so it usually makes sense to err on the side of generating false negatives rather than false positives. For things like Software Engineering, a CS or related degree is a fairly reliable filtern signal early in the process, even if this means a few otherwise solid candidates slip through.
-
I fully believe that many companies desire a degree not as a way of filtering applicants, not as a measure of finishing a committed project, but because along with that degree is often a massive unforgivable debt burden.
.
With folks often living above their means, toss in some debt and individuals have far less opportunities to strike out for greener fields or to decline less than stellar assignments/deadlines. They NEED their paycheck every 2 weeks.
-
I fully believe that many companies desire a degree not as a way of filtering applicants, not as a measure of finishing a committed project, but because along with that degree is often a massive unforgivable debt burden.
.
With folks often living above their means, toss in some debt and individuals have far less opportunities to strike out for greener fields or to decline less than stellar assignments/deadlines. They NEED their paycheck every 2 weeks.
You really think someone with their mental bandwidth partially consumed by financial peril is going to be a more productive worker?
-
No, I do not believe that a financially enslaved worker will be a better worker.
This is a belief based on management comments made across the broader industry in which I work - including the hire/fire comments some folks have spewed after a few drinks. Inflating lifestyle is highly encouraged. Control games are also rampant. It's ugly.
-
No, I do not believe that a financially enslaved worker will be a better worker.
This is a belief based on management comments made in the industry in which I work - including the hire/fire comments they spew after a few drinks. Inflating lifestyle is highly encouraged. Control games are also rampant. It's ugly.
Those are the stories that make me grateful to be a wage earner. I've always avoided debt since I grew up poor with someone who didn't like debt, and because of this I have...employment liquidity? Most of my co-workers don't and I'm grateful to be the guy with the freedom to say no. Sometimes managers need to hear "no" from someone. Unfortunately the temptation gets stronger than it should sometimes and I think about resigning when really it's just been a long day and I'm grumpy. It has given me the liberty or, more importantly, the confidence necessary to negotiate. "Fuck you money" eyes are just about as powerful as the real thing.
I think the secondary education system is ripe for overhauling and doing a better job of assessing people's strengths and an appropriate career or job for them. Post-sec is a very wide brush that selects for conscientiousness and agreeableness, which selects against people that don't really like obeying "the system". Those people are the Bransons if they can get their conscientiousness under control.
The big five personality trait assessment is interesting in this regard, you can take a test at understandmyself dot com.
They are outlined as:
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Intelligence
Openness
-
IQ (general cognitive ability) is likely the best predictor of your success in a career -- there is plenty of evidence and research in regards to this. Those with higher aptitude in problem solving, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition simply outperform their peers and can perform the same job more efficiently and quickly. It's a subject that rubs a lot of people the wrong way so it's rarely discussed (The fact that IQ has a strong genetic basis and is very difficult to change is too undemocratic for many people). Not sure of the legality in the US, but if I were hiring and it were legal, I would base a large part of the decision on IQ and skillset rather than diploma attained.
-
IQ (general cognitive ability) is likely the best predictor of your success in a career -- there is plenty of evidence and research in regards to this. Those with higher aptitude in problem solving, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition simply outperform their peers and can perform the same job more efficiently and quickly. It's a subject that rubs a lot of people the wrong way so it's rarely discussed (The fact that IQ has a strong genetic basis and is very difficult to change is too undemocratic for many people). Not sure of the legality in the US, but if I were hiring and it were legal, I would base a large part of the decision on IQ and skillset rather than diploma attained.
I think it really depends on one’s skills other than IQ that also largely dictate some success. I’ve known countless people in my life who were near geniuses, but at the same time, terrible employees. They sucked with people, they sucked to be around, they sucked following though on their responsibilities, sucked managing their time, etc.
While others might have pretty bad IQ’s, but they can acknowledge that and kickass on everything else, so they might look like rockstars even if their IQ isn’t that high.
I work for one of the largest oil and gas companies in the country. A fortune 25 company. I have an office at their global headquarters where probably 95% of the people have degrees. I am 30 and don’t have a bachelor’s degree (associates and some certifications). My responsibilities are very similar to those of project managers/engineers/construction managers.
Even though I don’t have a degree, I would bet that I am probably top 5% income on this board, and probably bottom 10% in terms of IQ.
While I’m not the smartest, I am well aware of that and bust my ass to compensate for it. The notes I take during meetings, action item lists I create for myself, processes to follow through on responsibilities are second to none. I’m constantly reading books on how to make myself a better employee, communicate better, etc. I’ve managed up to 22 direct reports on certain projects. My current job (in which I’ll make over $300k this year) my bosses have never once discussed my roles and responsibilities or requirements of my position because they haven’t had to. I never got a job description. I have just dug my claws into everything and made myself valuable. In January they just gave me a $15/hr raise without even having to ask for it.
Degrees are great for some people, but they are hardly a deciding factor in terms of finding a quality employee (in certain industries). For many industries, on the job experience goes much further than what is learned in school.
-
I’ve known countless people in my life who were near geniuses, but at the same time, terrible employees. They sucked with people, they sucked to be around, they sucked following though on their responsibilities, sucked managing their time, etc.
There will always be exceptions. This is just statistical. Of course other qualities matter as well, but general cognitive ability per the studies and evidence that I've read is by far the most important factor.
-
IQ (general cognitive ability) is likely the best predictor of your success in a career -- there is plenty of evidence and research in regards to this. Those with higher aptitude in problem solving, spatial manipulation, and language acquisition simply outperform their peers and can perform the same job more efficiently and quickly. It's a subject that rubs a lot of people the wrong way so it's rarely discussed (The fact that IQ has a strong genetic basis and is very difficult to change is too undemocratic for many people). Not sure of the legality in the US, but if I were hiring and it were legal, I would base a large part of the decision on IQ and skillset rather than diploma attained.
Reminds me of the time I took the GRE and soon realized I had forgotten to pee beforehand (the test is hours long). I did fairly, but definitely not well enough to assure my entry into the PhD programs I was eyeballing at tier 1 research universities.
I decided to scavenge up a few hundred more dollars and retake the test the following month, even though a psych professor I consulted assured me of the test’s reliability. My scores were about 100 points higher on each part of the exam (the test scored from 200-800 back then). A standard deviation or two, over pee. Makes me wonder how many lives have been ruined and how many dreams crushed by test anxiety, mild colds, poor sleep, ill-fitting clothes, or funny smells.
-
IQ is a big predictor for success but so is conscientiousness. Your capacity to keep at something and commit to it is more useful to an employer than how clever you are, for most jobs anyway. And you have those idiot savant types that are brilliant but can't stay diligent(high openness). I'd also argue agreeableness is a big factor for group and office type work. Herds like animals that look like they do, to be blunt about it. Outliers that are weirder than simply being new have more liability associated with them(but sometimes they innovate, this is the problem that administrative low-openness people have when they surround themselves entirely with like-thinkers and find themselves unable to produce new ideas).
-
I routinely hire folks, and my positions require a 4 year degree. I don't specify which degree, but do have a preference for STEM degrees. For me the degree says the individual has a broad basis of knowledge and is able to grasp multiple concepts, and likely has learned to solve problems from multiple angles. That, however isn't enough to get the job. My career has certification exams, and those are like the job specific skills tests.
Typically, I will look holistically at the individual. If they have an English or history degree, but has completed the certification exams, I will view that more highly than an individual with a STEM degree and the exams, because they are more well rounded.
As to IQ and career success, I think that depends on what you mean by success. IQ and hard work will get you to a Sr. level technical position, but you don't get into Sr. Management without the ability to relate to others and to sell. The CMO really doesn't take kindly to a presentation that is all logic and no story.
In my role I work with the Sr. leaders in my organization every day. I haven't pulled out any statistical studies to prove my point. We did the studies, and they can be proven, but it just works better to translate the statistics into a relate-able story. The highest IQ individuals in my field are very impressive, but can't explain how to get to the grocery store without including game theory into the conversation. They will never be Sr. Leaders.
-
[/spoiler]I grew up in a hard scrabble environment and although I put myself through school and have done pretty well in life, I have never allowed Degree inflation to override those with Better Talent where I could make a difference. I do the same with leveling the pay playing field. I am an older Gen Xer and have indeed seen a pay gap between Men and Women, Degreed vs Non-Degreed, as well as long standing employees vs new blood that comes in at a higher pay. As a Male leader that has worked for 2 of the major tech firms in my life, I never waited for HR to "Catch Up" and create a policy or actually "DO SOMETHING RIGHT." Where I had control over the promo, raise, bonus, Stock Package budgets, I completed my own analysis on the numbers with the help of finance to ensure that I was not missing anything, along with my careful observation of performance, commitment, output, attitude, etc. This has always resulted in elevation of some, holding flat of others that quite frankly never earned the spot they got - just because they went to an Ivy - and were often held up by others working circles around them. Then I have also pushed put people from organizations who thought they were entitled to an easy path, being out preformed by those with either no degree or from colleges that were state colleges or non ivy.
Every hiring manager, boss, influencer in reviews has the power to normalize - within a range of course- so my advice is to make this a part of your job...no excuses. Examine every year who gets paid what based on what they do. Where you have the budget, work to fix it. It can 't always be done all at once but you can gradually do it over time.
I learned this from someone who did it for me once. I had been promoted from the field into a corporate office where I was supposed to be on par in pay with my peer group but because I came from a lessor college and had worked in a field office for many years, my pay was less from the start as HR pays a premium for top school, and then those in non corporate roles get paid less. I came into the job with a huge gap in pay and in a short time it was very clear that I was significantly outperforming the Ivy's and so during my reviews she would talk me through all the places she was helping to normalize my compensation and that she would get me on par w/the others within 1.5 yrs time and she did. I took that learning and have applied on every new team I inherit, hire, etc. It's easier to do than you think. You just need to dig into and understand the math as well as where you can balance and stretch the ranges within your budget between Cost of Living increases, performance and discretionary bonus, stock, etc. It takes courage to not follow the herd on this one and take a stand by giving someone less deserved a lessor increase than HR or a formula recommends. You can often override those boxes within a range when you are plugging in who gets what in the compensation. Each company will have a different tool or spreadsheet you plug into but learn all about it, pay attention, and fight properly for what your people deserve.
With that I take a lot of pride in those I have elevated in their careers who were far more talented than those with more education. In some instances that talent was being left for dead and branded as "no future" but when you actually teased apart the output of who was doing the work, who was coming up with the ideas, who was building the relationships across the org and getting real things of value done, it was those hiding in the most least likely places. And when I elevated them, just as I knew they would, they thrived. I changed their lives forever just like someone did for me.
Save a life today, save a career, that has lasting impact far more reaching than you can imagine. It's not where they went to school. It's what they have learned, are willing to learn and do. This is every leaders responsibility who owns a performance budget. And to those of you who are parents that have daughters and sons...you need to challenge the gap in pay. I have done deep analysis on this across every firm I have worked for and even when you normalize for kids, LoA's, etc...it does exist. For those in power, shame on you for waiting for anyone else to normalize it. You need to normalize upon every Hire. You need to normalize across your team during every single performance review period - or at least as much as you can. Same job, same commitment and output, same pay period. Otherwise you will answer to the futures of your daughters some day and wonder why they are not as well off as your sons and that is not something that I would ever want to look in the mirror and say I should have/could have done more.
Disparities can be normalized when you hold the purse in any company - at least they can be brought a lot closer together - no excuses.
-
Peter principle, oh man.
-W
-
For those in power, shame on you for waiting for anyone else to normalize it. You need to normalize upon every Hire. You need to normalize across your team during every single performance review period - or at least as much as you can. Same job, same commitment and output, same pay period. Otherwise you will answer to the futures of your daughters some day and wonder why they are not as well off as your sons and that is not something that I would ever want to look in the mirror and say I should have/could have done more.
Disparities can be normalized when you hold the purse in any company - at least they can be brought a lot closer together - no excuses.
Wow Larsg, brilliant analysis. Thank you for articulating this so well. If more people acted like you have, and took responsibility, the world would be a fairer place.