214
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by redfox@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world

This article outlines an opinion that organizations either tried skills based hiring and reverted to degree required hiring because it was warranted, or they didn't adapt their process in spite of executive vision.

Since this article is non industry specific, what are your observations or opinions of the technology sector? What about the general business sector?

Should first world employees of businesses be required to obtain degrees if they reasonably expect a business related job?

Do college experiences and academic rigor reveal higher achieving employees?

Is undergraduate education a minimum standard for a more enlightened society? Or a way to hold separation between classes of people and status?

Is a masters degree the new way to differentiate yourself where the undergrad degree was before?

Edit: multiple typos, I guess that's proof that I should have done more college 😄

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 88 points 4 months ago

To believe otherwise, you must believe that business leaders and hiring managers don’t know what they’re doing – that they are blindly following tradition or just lazy. [...]you’d need to believe that businesses have simply overlooked a better way to hire. That seems naïve.

IDK, Has the author ever worked anywhere? Talked to anyone who worked somewhere? READ SOME POSTS ON REDDIT ABOUT WORKING SOMEWHERE? The amount of times no one could understand why a business does what it does, seemingly to its own detriment, is staggering.

They are right that it's wrong to believe that people with college degrees don't have skills - some do. The issue is that it appears to practically be non correlated to each other. I've seen people with college degrees who clearly learned very little during that experience. I've seen people with no degree be very knowledgeable and skilled.

The other obvious question in regard to hiring is - if going to college was necessary to do a job, then surely the degree would matter. However, outside of limited situations, the thing they're looking for is a degree, not one related to the job they're hiring for. Also, degrees are stupidly expensive which at least has to drive up wages a little anytime there's some competition in the labor market.

I'd argue the biggest obvious mark against a degree really doing much is that it's relevant at most for the first job. After that, no one asks to see the degree, or cares what your GPA was, or whatever - because the much better skill assessment is actually doing a job in the field. At that point, while it's tradition to require a degree, it's literally a check box. If these companies thought about it better, they'd realize the hiring mostly ignores degrees for any position outside of literally the first one out of college. An obvious solution to this problem IMHO would be the probationary period. Set it for 6 months renewing for some period. You need some time having someone do the actual task to really know if they're going to be a good fit anyway.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 18 points 4 months ago

Has the author ever worked anywhere?

I wonder if having a degree is a hard requirement for journalism and writing/communication and that's what the author's world perspective is based on?

When coworkers sit around the lunch table and complain/vent about the state of the world, do you imagine that journalist complain about a lack of higher education, so when they see any evidence that threatens the model of college degrees (which = debt), they jump on it as proof of their own path?

while it’s tradition to require a degree, it’s literally a check box

This is a very good challenge to the requirement. If it's just a check box (that you have A degree) and not a very specific one, does it diminish the credibility of the requirement?

Do people like the probationary period idea? It sounds functional and practical to me.

[-] lqdrchrd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

I currently work at a business that uses a similar method to the probationary period, and I hate it. It’s definitely one of those things that sounds good on paper, but in practice I would love to move away from.

We use a proprietary system in my field, and train a couple of members of each department to be able to submit stuff into it (think Concur / NetSuite). It takes about three months to become proficient enough that I don’t have some form of issue with everything you submit. This means I can spend months training someone, just for them to be let go and the next person roll in.

Training people is expensive in both cash for the business and the time of those around them. Hiring correctly once would make my life a lot easier.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Training people is expensive in both cash for the business and the time of those around them

You're definitely supported by an enormous amount of evidence in this.

In my current job, we have a small group of employees with specialties in sciences, medical, hazardous materials, IT, threat/plume modeling, and running daily activities. They go to so much training in their first two years, they're gone all the time, and then they are still almost worthless for another year due to lack of real-world knowledge they couldn't get from these special schools.

When we hire the wrong people, it's a huge problem in costs, lost time, and then it makes finding replacements that much harder and shorts the organization longer as well.

Finding the right people who are a good fit is hard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 4 months ago

I've never seen a hiring manager that knew shit about anything besides trying to haggle wages down. Are they living in some kind of parallel universe?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] june@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months ago

I spent the last 4 years working on this at a state-wide level at my last job, so I’ve seen a lot in this space. Skills based hiring is extremely effective when done right. The problem is that most employers don’t know how. They take the degree requirement off the listing and then go through the same interview processes as if nothing changed. In tech specifically, there is a huge highly skilled talent pool whose potential is going untapped because of a glass ceiling keeping them from senior positions. If employers were effective at identifying what applicants, and even existing employees, are capable of they’d have a much easier time filling roles and the ‘talent gap’ wouldn’t be nearly as severe as it is.

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

I've been in management for about 15 years and have hired many people. My take-away is that standard HR interview practices ("Tell me about a time when you had a conflict with a coworker...") are basically a popularity contest that strongly favors extroverts and people with good story-telling and language skills. I suppose these techniques are good if that's primarily what you are looking for. However, if you are hiring for actual technical skills, these interview techniques are worse than useless, they are discriminatory.

Also, HR people, in my experience, are quite under-educated when it comes to interview techniques. I've worked with about dozen different HR people over the years and none of them had any kind of imagination or technical expertise when it came to interviewing. In my organization and in other similar organizations where I have peers, any deviation from the standard HR interview is entirely driven by managers who are sick of the usual HR crap.

[-] delaunayisation@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Most of HR processes are pure ideological bullshit. "Personality tests" that are nothing else but "we search for obedient drones and here is our tarot to help" and "intelligence tests" that are based on some racial science bullshit made to prove the inferiority of Jews that might be useful only if you work in a factory of math patterns.

They are not there to ensure efficient production, after all they don't know shit about the product or internal processes of the teams. They're a caste of priests whose role is ensuring compliance with the feudal-corporate system.

[-] yamanii@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

A friend was just turned down from a job at a japanese software factory because "he talked too much" during his interview, but the one doing the interview is also my friend and said the guy was good but the CTO puts extreme importance on "cultural match".

[-] Vibi@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago

Started working for my current company as tech support. No degree, in a homeless shelter, just good with tech and helping people. It bothered me not understanding how things I supported worked, so I started to teach myself to code and offer ideas for potential fixes when submitting tickets. Ended up being approached and hired by the head of development who allowed me to continue learning on my own. I've been with them for 12 years now, and in the first few years hobbled together the product/feature which became their flagship. Find people who are eager and excited to learn and they'll thrive.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 22 points 4 months ago

Find people who are eager and excited to learn and they’ll thrive

Yours is an awesome story, thanks.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 43 points 4 months ago

In my mind, if a company wants to set a generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans. Otherwise it's using the education system as a subsidized training program.

Note I said generalized. Engineers, doctors, etc who desire to ever be employed can't stop at a bachelor's anyways. Even still, their employees should have to pick up their training tab.

Business has gotten a free pass for 40 years and look at the society they've created with it. Maybe civilization needs more than a love of money to sustain it. Crazy huh.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

This would make getting a job out of college SO MUCH HARDER. Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce, for whom someone else has already paid off their loan.

Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans. I suppose this could work similar to vesting, so it wouldn’t be impossible. But companies would still try very hard not to hire anyone with student loans. It would just benefit the wealthy people who don’t need them.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

Much easier to just raise business taxes by enough to pay for free education at all levels.

Tax based upon the average education level required for the job in the industry. This would change them all to a skills based hiring system overnight.

[-] Okashiikessen@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

I guess the real answer is government subsidized college.

Free college.

An investment in the future through rigorous and accessible education.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

And/or lower the costs of education. A lot of college seems tribal or even wasteful for the cost currently

[-] Grangle1@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

This is how it has to start in the US. Subsidizing free college in other countries is much easier because colleges there keep their costs under control, focusing on education and research over the "college experience", so the costs per student of running said colleges is much lower. There is SO much wasteful spending, brought about by the greed of many US colleges for the near unlimited flow of student loan money coming from lenders especially prominent in the 2000s and 2010s, that can be thrown out to cut those costs.

Not to mention that fewer people in free college countries actually attend a university, with education systems in those countries designed to steer many students towards places like trade/ag/other schools if they show aptitude in areas they really don't need a 4-year degree for or really just don't meet the academic standard to get into those universities. Millennials and Gen Z were all told in the US that we HAD to go to college to get anywhere in the world and we were all pushed in that direction whether it was a good direction for us or not. Now there's a big labor shortage here in the trades and other blue collar jobs because so few younger people have the proper skills, which aren't really taught in four-year institutions, or the desire to take on the training or effort to gain those skills. Fewer students spending four years in an expensive university and more in two-year schools or trade schools has the advantage of both lowering overall education costs and providing a workforce with more diverse skills, regardless of the time needed to train them.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 6 points 4 months ago

You know, when the concept of publicly funded education was proposed, it was considered revolutionary and not well supported by some, who didn't like the idea of the costs.

We currently have K-12 in US that's publicly funded education. This idea would essentially just make that K-16.

This video regarding education has always been one of my favorites: https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce

I'm not disagreeing with you. I would submit that this is already true for other reasons. Speaking specifically of IT or INFOSEC fields, companies currently have extremely high expectations or experience requirements/desires.

This has been a problem for the INFOSEC field where there's a shortage, but companies don't want to hire entry level candidates with little to no experience. They want reasoned, veteran INFOSEC practitioners, which there isn't enough of.

@SoylentBlake@lemm.ee

generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans

@TheRealKuni@lemmy.world

Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans

I like that you both brought this up. There's a real life example of this in the US military. It's a well known benefit/incentive for military service that they would fund your college education if you work for them long enough. You signed your service contract, but if you met that, you got your education for 'free' if you want to call it that. It's a little different in you might be killed in a stupid political war along the way, but it shows that the idea is practical and can work.

I guess if I had the choice of being hired at a really decent company and they would fund some highly sought after training as long as I gave them a reasonable number or years of employment with reasonable compensation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

On the other had, the SyFi fan that I am, I could see a bit of a dystopian future where you have to belong to companies for a while to start off in life. If you consider that people now start off in massive student loan dept, the dystopian ownership is currently banks while people take up to 20+ years to repay student loans.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago

Personally, I think education should be free to all, rich or poor, as its the summation of the human experience thus far.

Or in other words, it's our birthright

No one should have the right or ability to paygate it, and that includes the state. The labs necessary should be publically funded because society would suffer more for having less physicists and chemists than an abundance of them, for reasons I hope are obvious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Engineers in the US regularly stop at the bachelor's level.

[-] Fonderthud@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

Yup, in the office we regularly hire engineers and scientists with a bachelor's, I've never seen anyone even care what tier of bachelor's. Some people go on to get licensed or a master's on the company dime but we also have lots of unlicensed never going back to school people in very technical demanding and high ranking positions.

I'm just a geologist with a bachelor's and am regularly supervising and training people with engineering PhDs. My work place quickly becomes task specific and degrees are worth less than years in the field a lot of the time, your mileage may vary.

[-] I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Or, you know, get some state-funded free college education like most other civilized countries other than the US, so you actually do not end up with $100k student loans like a dumbass.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

I'm with ya man, if cost weren't a deterrent I'd hold multiple doctorates right now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago

Just because I got A++ in college doesn't mean I wanna go the extra mile for your stupid ass company or believe my coworkers are a second family, you corporate wastes of space. I'll do the bare minimum as long as I get paid enough to enjoy life and have a family. College was fun, working is not.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago

It seems like businesses have forgotten quality of life in the workplace. I remember my grandfather working for a company that invested in nice furniture, art, painted walls, and even a daycare to make their employees lives better. People tended to stay there a very long time.

Every company I’ve worked for has been a grey hellhole with cubes as far as the eye can see and anti-decoration policies for your individual space. It’s a little better now with WFH, but the office remains a grim cave that nobody wants to visit.

Maybe if they used a little more carrot and a little less stick, they’d get better results.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 27 points 4 months ago

As much as I hate the higher education requirement, if I get another “boot camp” developer application I’m gonna puke.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

This is why I only interview barefoot candidates.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[-] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

For a lot of jobs that want bachelors degrees, people with lots of experience will do. But for jobs requiring masters and doctorates its a different story.

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

I work in IT. I majored I'm French and Linguistics. Yeah that degree is coming in way more handy than my experience lol

[-] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 13 points 4 months ago

How do you write this article and not once reference I/O Psychology or the literature that examines how well various tests predict job performance? (e.g. Schmidt and Hunter, 1998)

I swear this isn't witchcraft. You just analyze the job, determine the knowledge and skills that are important, required at entry, and can't be obtained in a 15 minute orientation, and then hire based on those things. It takes a few hours worth of meetings. I've done it dozens of times.

But really what all that boils down to is get someone knowledgeable about the role and have them write any questions and design the exercises. Don't let some dingleberry MBA ask people how to move Mt. Fuji or whatever dumb trendy thing they're teaching in business school these days.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

I can't count the number of times I've interviewed with a contractor/headhunter and a few minutes in stop them to say "I'm not what you're looking for, here, let me help you re-work those requirements so you'll get the right people to interview".

HR provides those requirements, which just shows how bad HR usually is.

I read about a study years ago showing that hiring via interviews was no better than pulling cards out of a hat.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is an interesting observation.

In theory, the section/department manager should be providing those requirements to HR, not allowing HR to do it for them, right? I have to agree, if companies are letting HR drive the requirements train, it's going to be a poor experience for everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I'm a bootcamp grad and I have absolutely no business working in this field.

[-] lando55@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

The very fact that you recognize this in yourself puts you head and shoulders above a good 70% of candidates.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

From my exp in tech has been getting to know people on projects and getting known is been 100% the way to go.

What is someone good at and how they work with a team is best seen by working with someone. Getting started though just means taking the shit work and being willing to learn more your own.

[-] sartalon@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

This is a TERRIBLY written article.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 8 points 4 months ago

I could see it working for some roles, but I am an engineer and the degree is both required by my company and necessary to actually do the work.

That said, 80% of my job is not degree-specific and could be done by anyone who pays attention and asks questions, but the 20% is the kicker. Maybe I could do the job of five engineers and replace the other 4 with experienced technicians to cover the 80%s.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 8 points 4 months ago

Code has been skills-based for as long as I’ve been working. The few places I’ve seen that really have a hard degree requirement are not places I’d work. Most CS degrees are also mostly worthless for most app jobs because the theory is not the practice. There are degree programs that focus on shipping applications. In my own hiring, I’m looking for experience over degree and potential over buzzword bingo.

[-] redfox@infosec.pub 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I’m looking for experience over degree

In most cases, it's assumed you'd hire an experienced dev over one who has never held a job, and by that, I mean they have no proof of skill, if you consider a previous employment any proof of actual skill other than convicting someone to hire them :)

Assume you're hiring a new to workforce person. No previous employment:

  • Do you hire a degree or no degree candidate with no previous employment record?
  • What do you look for specifically if you are looking for skills?
  • If your child/family member was going to pursue a career in dev/IT/whatever, would you push them to get a degree, or just build a portfolio of code/projects/whatever shows their skills in that field?
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Solemarc@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I'm a developer working for a SaaS company and you didn't NEED a degree to get hired but it sure was a "nice to have."

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
214 points (90.5% liked)

Technology

55919 readers
2579 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS