clubgop wrote:Also companies cant gauge their employees on anything else. Unless they want to get sued and have feds breath down their necks. I have older pharmaxist waxing poetic about the good old days about administering aptitude test pick out the best people to send to pharmacy school or business classes. Used to be cheaper too, could take an 18 year old stock boy and put him on a path now, nope.Calculus Man wrote:It's laziness, more than anything. It's easier to use arbitrary requirements than it is to make difficult judgments about character and what-not.GrumpyCatFace wrote: I've got an Associates as well, and I'm always stunned at how hard HR departments cling to Bachelor Degree requirements.
I also think the regulations/laws that make it so difficult to fire people play a role. Taking risks on potentially unqualified people can be expensive. I don't think that a degree is the same as being qualified, but that's the consensus reality I suppose.
Using degrees as a metric isn't all bad, but our system is broken. For too long we have made getting a degree a check in the box with the diploma no real sign of competency or ability to perform. The biggest problem we have with this is when we use a technical degree or advanced degree as a pre-requisite for a Leadership position. I see it all the time in Engineering. And Engineers are notoriously bad leaders. Plus generally speaking, people that get advanced degrees make far better followers than leaders. Yet, throughout our system our organizations demand that higher degree for a Leadership position. Second part of that equation is the quals for a job rarely ask you to prove your have Leadership talents and skills. So we hires Leaders, but don't have the applicants prove they can lead.
