Why do companies feel like that have to try and do everything?
Why can't you just 'stay in your lane' and be good at what you're good at.
Why do companies feel like that have to try and do everything?
Why can't you just 'stay in your lane' and be good at what you're good at.
LOL, yep, I missed that.
That's an excellent point/observation.
Do you believe that organizations could have a mix of both types of people?
only interview barefoot candidates
Would you elaborate?
you paid someone
This is true in both cases
no accreditation, unlike university degree programs
This is true. It's an interesting destination.
Edit: does a well rounded and accredited education provide more value to your organization than a narrowly scoped employee?
Schmidt and Hunter, 1998
That's a 74 page article, do you care to summarize it or provide a specific area?
Thanks for a reference. Interesting.
Find people who are eager and excited to learn and they’ll thrive
Yours is an awesome story, thanks.
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:
Did your degree help you with:
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.
Can you talk about this more?
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.