Industries and Education

[avax]

I'm wondering how some of you feel when you see bothersome upstarts with unrelated educational background or experience appear in your industry or company?

I remember clearly having close friends who were very proud of their business courses, honours programs and prestigious programs.

I regularly hear about others with varied backgrounds and unique experiences, taking over jobs they're not supposed to have, jobs that should have been for the grads that worked hard for them through the normal, traditional route through school. Just wondering if anyone has any stories, good or bad, on this. How standard are the qualifications? Are exceptions unfair?

Unrelated to ^ but also related regarding unfair or semi-unfair situations, what are the policies like on hiring family members where you work? I was offered a job earlier this year from a cousin in a company where a father hired on his son. This feels kind of weird. The offer is still open but I took another one.

Also, how do you feel about advantages or priorities given to veterans?

[black mamba]

It's not about what you know; it's about who you know.

Sad, but true. Sometimes.

[tbw]

In my job, I don't care if they have formal qualifications or not (not really my concern - only really used when hiring someone.) What I do care about is when someone is hired that has NO basic understanding of the industry or the basic principles of the industry (that either would have been learnt from a formal qualification or from experience.)

The kind of people who get the job by knowing someone is bad enough as it makes the teams job that much harder because the new person cannot pull their weight for a while (which is a given); but when after 6 months in a role the new person still hasn't made and effort to understand or learn the basic principles on which the industry is based then that pisses me off. A job that would have been given to a person who had an interest in the job (ie at least willing to learn) is given to this no-hoper because they know someone. (No-hoper wanted the job cause of alot better pay i'm sure.) This is similar to hiring family members - if they are suited for the role, then by all means, but I have found that sometimes its best to leave family & friends separate from business/work.

[/rant]

[jewbird]

I think the current system is too inflexible with regards to educational and experience related qualifications as it is. Nepotism may be the only way around it. If you can do the job, who cares?

And in the current economic environment, one must fight tooth and nail for every chance one can get.

[avax]

txb18 said:

The kind of people who get the job by knowing someone is bad enough as it makes the teams job that much harder because the new person cannot pull their weight for a while (which is a given); but when after 6 months in a role the new person still hasn't made and effort to understand or learn the basic principles on which the industry is based then that pisses me off. A job that would have been given to a person who had an interest in the job (ie at least willing to learn) is given to this no-hoper because they know someone. (No-hoper wanted the job cause of alot better pay i'm sure.) This is similar to hiring family members - if they are suited for the role, then by all means, but I have found that sometimes its best to leave family & friends separate from business/work.

Then it's the person who has recommended X whose reputation is on the line. What would you say?

____________________

No comments on veterans?

[tbw]

avax said:

Then it's the person who has recommended X whose reputation is on the line. What would you say?

When someone steaks their rep for another is between those two parties. If they got into the job on that recommendation with little to no educational background or experience gets to me though.

I hate thinking about the guy here who started 6 months ago yet still doesn't understand the basics behind what makes our job work. And each time we give him info to learn he doesn't seem to read it and is still asking the same questions as when he first started, rather than reading the info, he'll be reading the news. He doesn't even keep notes. Although he had no recommendation, he also has no related educational background and the smallest of experience in the industry.

I'm comparing this guy to the others in the group who also came in with either a tonne of experience or a related educational background through. My expectations maybe unfair, but 6 months to learn a role should be plenty of time. Others in the group notice this & now a fresh position has opened up we are possibly facing another guy like him (judging by the applications.) My beef is that he doesn't pull his weight at work, guy is nice and all to talk to socially, but i'm focusing on the work aspect.

For a Veteran, do you mean an old person? or someone who has had a long standing with the company/business?
I don't think old people should be treated any differently, though they should be given assistance via training when required to understand things that younger people can pick up straight away. But someone who has had say 15-20 years with a company (which is not too common) should be given the appropriate rewards if they are still preforming their job function to an acceptable level (just to show others that company loyalty should be rewarded.)

[ConceptDesign]

I'm one of those bothersome upstarts. I never studied IT at Uni...

[dynamicken]

A company will choose/promote employees who will increase the value of their company the most.

Just because you spent 10's of thousands on an education does not mean you will make your firm any more money than someone who dropped out of college.

It really depends on the industry and situation - but a blanket statement like "he got a college education so he's more qualified" are complete BS.

It's not about what you "deserve," it's about what the company believes you will add to their bottom line. They're not always equivalent.

I'm finishing up my last year at a good college where the kids got ridiculous test scores out of high school, and I can tell you that they don't "deserve" a spot at any given firm any more than you do. They don't have any special level of initiative. They'd like to believe they can think for themselves, but many of them are inculcated in liberal ideology and don't even know how to, or are scared of being critical of it...don't get me wrong, their personality/skill-set are definitely ideal for some industries and roles.

And they're far from ideal for others.

[viruslabrat]

This topic is one I've come across at work lately. We have someone who came over as a scientist to our department from forensics. This was mainly because she was having problems with management in her department (or "politics" as she calls it) and partly because we were run off our feet during flu season. She was only ever meant to be here temporarily but she's doing her best to stay now that it's our quiet season. The problem is she doesn't have any microbiology experience (we are a section of the microbiology department!) and I think her knowledge of molecular biology is pretty basic (if that) too. It's something I feel extremely uncomfortable with because right now her job is to choose tests for patients based on the doctor's request forms and specimen type. Um... yeah, that's a bit hard to do when you don't know any microbiology and can't associate symptoms with the likely infectious diseases. For someone who says they were disgruntled with forensics because "it's all about politics and not about doing what's best for their clients" then I don't know how she can, in good conscience, try to take a position that she's not qualified for and doesn't serve the needs of OUR clients to the standard expected.

Anyways, we've been picking up her mistakes (some of which affect other sections ) but basically we've been told we don't have a say in whether she stays - it's up to the guy in charge of forensics (who's good buddies with the head of virology and site director). I think it's crap that someone in a completely different department can decide who staffs our section. Plus, they've become really strict about qualifications for Medical Scientist positions. One requirement is that they major in microbiology! How is it fair that other people who have been working in our section for years can be passed over for scientist duties because they don't have the right qualifications (only studied micro for 1 or 2 years but more than her) but have plenty of experience?? We have one person who has been on scientist duties for at least a couple of years now, yet she's supposed to stand aside and let another unqualified person take a permanent position simply because the person doesn't get along in her own department? Public sector = dodgy. If I were a patient or a doctor using our services I'd be worried.

[jewbird]

Surely the woman's expertise with blood-sucking parasites qualifies her as having microbiology experience?

[avax]

txb18 said:

avax said:

Then it's the person who has recommended X whose reputation is on the line. What would you say?

When someone steaks their rep for another is between those two parties. If they got into the job on that recommendation with little to no educational background or experience gets to me though.

I hate thinking about the guy here who started 6 months ago yet still doesn't understand the basics behind what makes our job work. And each time we give him info to learn he doesn't seem to read it and is still asking the same questions as when he first started, rather than reading the info, he'll be reading the news. He doesn't even keep notes. Although he had no recommendation, he also has no related educational background and the smallest of experience in the industry.

I'm comparing this guy to the others in the group who also came in with either a tonne of experience or a related educational background through. My expectations maybe unfair, but 6 months to learn a role should be plenty of time. Others in the group notice this & now a fresh position has opened up we are possibly facing another guy like him (judging by the applications.) My beef is that he doesn't pull his weight at work, guy is nice and all to talk to socially, but i'm focusing on the work aspect.

For a Veteran, do you mean an old person? or someone who has had a long standing with the company/business?
I don't think old people should be treated any differently, though they should be given assistance via training when required to understand things that younger people can pick up straight away. But someone who has had say 15-20 years with a company (which is not too common) should be given the appropriate rewards if they are still preforming their job function to an acceptable level (just to show others that company loyalty should be rewarded.)

Okay.

Re: veteran. I suppose I was thinking more about the post -vietnam war days when veterans were favoured over regular candidates. I'm pretty sure they receive lifetime bonuses or something thrown in (US). I'm wondering about 'veterans' as in the soldiers who have come back from the middle east. I know they definitely get high preference in the federal gov. but what about outside of gov-related areas? Does anyone know about the job-related situation and veterans in that aspect?

dynamicken said:

It really depends on the industry and situation - but a blanket statement like "he got a college education so he's more qualified" are complete BS.

It's not about what you "deserve," it's about what the company believes you will add to their bottom line. They're not always equivalent.

Well, it might not be the issue having a college education or not. Most do these days. If not one, then several. It's the thing regarding related experience or education that seems to throw curveballs whether for the team (virus' situation) or someone in tbw's position.

[cm]

viruslabrat said:

This topic is one I've come across at work lately. We have someone who came over as a scientist to our department from forensics. This was mainly because she was having problems with management in her department (or "politics" as she calls it) and partly because we were run off our feet during flu season. She was only ever meant to be here temporarily but she's doing her best to stay now that it's our quiet season. The problem is she doesn't have any microbiology experience (we are a section of the microbiology department!) and I think her knowledge of molecular biology is pretty basic (if that) too. It's something I feel extremely uncomfortable with because right now her job is to choose tests for patients based on the doctor's request forms and specimen type. Um... yeah, that's a bit hard to do when you don't know any microbiology and can't associate symptoms with the likely infectious diseases. For someone who says they were disgruntled with forensics because "it's all about politics and not about doing what's best for their clients" then I don't know how she can, in good conscience, try to take a position that she's not qualified for and doesn't serve the needs of OUR clients to the standard expected.

Anyways, we've been picking up her mistakes (some of which affect other sections ) but basically we've been told we don't have a say in whether she stays - it's up to the guy in charge of forensics (who's good buddies with the head of virology and site director). I think it's crap that someone in a completely different department can decide who staffs our section. Plus, they've become really strict about qualifications for Medical Scientist positions. One requirement is that they major in microbiology! How is it fair that other people who have been working in our section for years can be passed over for scientist duties because they don't have the right qualifications (only studied micro for 1 or 2 years but more than her) but have plenty of experience?? We have one person who has been on scientist duties for at least a couple of years now, yet she's supposed to stand aside and let another unqualified person take a permanent position simply because the person doesn't get along in her own department? Public sector = dodgy. If I were a patient or a doctor using our services I'd be worried.

Off topic: Do you have your masters degree in microbiology?

[cm]

Here is a story for ya

My friend works for the Fresno County urban development office. He gets paid 60 K USD per year and has his college education. All his ad visors do not have a college education, and were basically got their jobs from the good ole buddy system. Those guys make 100K at least.

As a result- Fresno is the definition of urban sprawl where you cannot survive without a car, and one of the most heavily polluted cities in the US (4th ranked).

Now the moral of the story? Get to know somebody that can get you a nice public job.

[SecretAsianMan]

seejayeff said:

<snip>
Now the moral of the story? Get to know somebody that can get you a nice public job.

As the old saying goes, "Sometimes it's all about who you know and not necessarily what you know." Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

To rephrase the lesson for a broader audience: network, network, and network some more.

[cm]

secretasianman said:

seejayeff said:

<snip>
Now the moral of the story? Get to know somebody that can get you a nice public job.

As the old saying goes, "Sometimes it's all about who you know and not necessarily what you know." Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

To rephrase the lesson for a broader audience: network, network, and network some more.

Or train in a field where they recruit you rather than you looking for them.

If you have a CPA from a state college, you're in demand. If you graduate from a business school from Cal, not necessarily so.

If you get your Pharm D in the US, you'll have 20 companies recruiting you with 90K USD a year start. If you are a pharmacy sales person, you will have to apply to 20 to get a good job.

And so on...and so on...