Education vs. Work Experience

He'd hire the guy with no degree because he can hire him for less money.

Re: Education vs. Work Experience


This would really depend on the specific job involved and who's doing the hiring.

If you want someone who can hit the ground running, go with experience. For the long haul, pick education. Some jobs simply require a degree, so no choice there.

Think I agree with Miller.

If I was hiring I'd favor the one with experience from the start. School teaches, but theory lacks a certain urgency, and decisions are unpressured and safe.
So you know he knows the rules of the game, but not if he's tough enough to play it.

One problem I see is that if the degree is at all related to the field I don't think someone WOULD have 4 years' experience without the degree. So it's a false premise in that sense. You have to get your foot in the door to get the experience, and you often need the degree to get your foot in the door. (As others have said, this varies according to field.)

book marking

I'll be back later to weigh in.

Emphasis mine. Doctor and lawyer pretty obviously require degrees. With IT, it's usually not a degree as opposed to certification and/or experience. A person could have a PhD but not be able to sort a spreadsheet, so IT has to depend on more of you knowing how to do certain things.

Another factor I'd consider (in addition to those listed) was how long I expected the person I hired to be around. If the position tends to have relatively high turnover, I might spurn experience in favor of somebody I think can learn the ropes quickly. For positions from which there is expected to be a certain amount of upward mobility, years of experience may simply mean that the person isn't quick/talented/diligent enough to move on to something better.

Education is overrated, in my opinion -- but experience (especially on-paper experience) can be misleading as well.

Personally, I've always been dismayed in job searches at how perfunctory the interview process is for nontechnical jobs. Why not put somebody on the job for half a day and evaluate their performance, instead of their resume (which may be a pack of lies), references (which may be personal friends), and education (which can oft be got without learning a whole hell of a lot)?

I agree, patiodog.

I did that with most of my hires -- had them do what I was hiring them for as part of the interview process. (Guest-teach a class, lead a discussion, etc.) That was for a specific reason -- they needed to be able to communicate well with my clients, and that was sometimes hard to gauge when they were in interview mode with me -- but I agree that the on-paper stuff and the in-action stuff don't always align.

I remember when I got hired at the University of Washington... At the time I was just looking for a menial day job with benefits to support other goings-on, had been temping and had been unable to crack the Seattle job market, which tends to be a "are you like me" kind of deal. It was dismaying, since I'd been offered three jobs while temping in Chicago by people who were nothing like me, just because they liked the way I worked. (Imagine that...)

So I'm sitting in this office at the UW talking to a guy who's looking for someone to sit at the front desk and move up into a job with some repsonsibility as it came open.

He looks at my resume.

"You don't have much experience in this area, do you?"

"No," I say, "but..." and I start to explain myself.

He cut me off. "It's all right. It doesn't take experience to answer a phone. I'd be worried if you had a lot of experience."

I got the job, moved to the top of the payscale within 6 months and had more responsibility than anyone else in a comparable position in the department within a year. More than most of the professional staff, too, for that matter.

I appreciated the way Gary (and Jane, too) hired...

It depends a great deal on the type of job, the requirements of the position, and the interviewer's viewpoint. As an extreme example, one could have 10 years experience operating (it would have to illegally) on people, but a hospital would never hire some one without the proper education.

In the majority of the cases, I would assume it is more in the middle. Experience is more important, however, many professional job requirements are a college degree so even if you have more than the required experience, you may not meet the minimum requirements to even get a job interview.

I have interview many people and had one only instance where an applicant did not have a college degree - this individual had attended college, but had never completed it. To me, this person could do the job, it was more a matter of does this person want to do the extra work to get ahead? Can they not complete something, once they start a project? I was also concerned with my group - how would they feel that I hired some one that did not accomplish what they had? These were the type of questions I had as a result. In order to see if perhaps this person simply had not finished college yet and was planning on it, I decided on a way I could find this out. When I interviewed this person, I mentioned some of the great benefits our company had including tuition reimbursement. This person made it clear to me they had no interest in pursuing their education. To me, it seemed as if this person did not value education and/or would not complete something once started. I went with the applicant with the education.

I'm agreeing with patiodog and soz.

the older I get, the more I see some degrees, that are not geared toward something specific, like medicine, or the law, as just a way to get a foot in the door, when I think actual life experience would be more valuable.

Sorry if I step on some toes here, but for instance, take a degree in Marketing. Sorry, but I just don't see that as a useful thing. Now, someone who has a natural talent for creativity, that's different.

Has anyone read the book "Dry" by Augusten Borroughs? In it, he revealed something about the field of marketing which I long suspected to be true, but it was not PC to say....Basically, they would have an account, and horse around for days, doing no work, until it was right on top of the deadline. Then, they'd pull some ideas out of their ass and present them with tons of flourish to the client, to make them feel like they got their money's worth.

To a certain degree I agree. By the way - where I attended many of those more difficult majors that people couldn't hack - would typically end up switching to marketing.

I attended a college based on business - so even say you took marketing - you still get a good education on the basics of business - accounting, finance, etc. So, it definately gives you edge. The difference between hiring some one with an education is they end up taking less training as they already know the basics. Believe me I know, I once tried training some one who had no accounting classes and to try from scratch to teach about debits and credits is a waste. Yes you could learn through training, but why the heck would you hire them - when there are a whole slew of them you can hire that already have that basic knowledge?

think about this. what about the kid that makes his way through college, puts in the class time, does just enough to pass all his tests and ends up with a degree. all he does is go to class during the day and parties at night while their parents pick up the tab. say they never really retained any or hardly any of the information from his classes, but hey, hes got a degree. however, hes not going to be able to apply much of what he learned to his new job, but all he has to do is get the job and he can adapt from there.

now would you say this kid is going to be able to go out and get a job easier than someone who started at the bottom and worked his way up for 4 years? someone who was only able to maintain a similar job for 4 years through competent learning and improved work skills? after all, this person has proven more off the bat than just flashing a degree.

if this is true than something is not right. some parents put their kids through college bexause they feel it will give their kid a leg up in the job market, and maybe it does. does that mean that this kid, who doesnt really know much more than an applicant with no degree or experience, will be looked at before the man who has proven himself capable in the job field? i think in some cases it does. but just because it happens doesnt mean its right.

Cmfc - as some one who had attended college and now has years of experience to boot (and interview many prospective candidates), I will explain what would happen to an individual like this. Typically when applying for your first job, it is expected that you put your GPA on your resume. If you do not the assumption is - your GPA s*cks. So if this person has a GPA of just passing, they will be at the bottom of the heap in regards to interviewing.

This person will end up getting a not as good a job, maybe one that does not require a degree, or a lower level degree or he talks himself into a job or a company is desperate to hire. If he continues in his typically fashion, he will get moderate raises and never promoted.

You make a point in comparing work experience vs. a mediocre education which entirely depends on the type of job. For many jobs, you get the best person for the job - whether it is work experience vs education or a combination of both. For other types of jobs, a degree may be necessary - nurses, doctors, accountants, lawyers, actuaries etc. You need to understand professional literature and certain laws in order to do the job and in many cases requiring a license; and to get this license you need a degree. In that same vain - such a student is unlikely to pass these tests requiring a license.

When I obtained my MA degree in Economics, my university required that you pass a comprehensive test. If you did not pass - you did not get a degree and you were only allowed to take it twice, thus ensuring you do not leave without retaining your knowledge. Other universities or colleges require students to prepare a thesis also with a goal to prove you have acquired certain levels of knowledge. Yes, people with slip through, but in the long run - these are the individuals I now see that stay at the same level of work year after year.

I think, as some have said, it depends on the job in question. I have worked with people with Ph.D's who may have known a lot about heat transfer in magma but knew diddly about people or management... they should not be hired into those kinds of positions.

Book smarts doesn't necessarily equate into living smarts or working smarts. Book smarts don't make up for narrow minds and other limiting factors.

I've also gone to university with some of the stupidest people on the planet and it's always been a source of amazement to me how they actually graduated with a bachelor's.

I dated one of those book smart idiots before. He did so well in classes and grades but he was dumb as a door knob otherwise. He was hot so I dated him.

The problem I see in many companies is that those that are technically strong get promoted into management without having any management skills (in part because I work in an area where you need to be technically strong). Many have little or no management skills - I am more the opposite, however, I typically am the opposite of others where ever I go.

It really is difficult to say which is more important as it really depends on the job and what a company values more highly.

first of all, i realize they will likely be looked at in a sort of ranking order. but would they be put on the bottom of the applicant pile or on the bottom of the applicant with degrees pile, which some believe is still always on top of work experience only apps.

also the thing about mediocre education is that its very hard to identify on paper. if your getting a degree in, say marketing, you dont nessesarily have to retain the knowlege for long to get good grades. just long enough to pass the class. sure a person with a crappy work ethic is going to be exposed sooner or later. once you get the job its up to you what you do with it. the most imporant part is giving the job to the right person and not turning them down only to end up with the wrong guy.

everyones getting degrees for something these days. if all the people with degrees are getting jobs before everyone else, soon enough the only jobs not filled by people with some sort of degree will be McDonalds and Walmart. im just saying that it doesnt take a degree to excell in the work force. degrees are not garentees. anyone want to chant?

I agree... an office manager, for example, doesn't have to have a Business Degree, but it really helps if they can negotiate with people, hae tact, organization skills, etc., that are crucial in that job.


I really like that you said this: "I am more the opposite, however, I typically am the opposite of others where ever I go."