Experience VS. Education
Riley
52 Posts
Here's a great hypothetical for a Friday:
You have two job applicants applying for the same position. Every thing on their resume is equal execpt to things: experience and education. One applicant has a BS degree with several years experience and the other applicant has no experience but has obtained a master's degree. All other things equal, which one would you choose to fill the position?
What would YOU do?
You have two job applicants applying for the same position. Every thing on their resume is equal execpt to things: experience and education. One applicant has a BS degree with several years experience and the other applicant has no experience but has obtained a master's degree. All other things equal, which one would you choose to fill the position?
What would YOU do?
Comments
First, I think your hypothesis is wrong. You say everything on the two resumes is equal except education and experience. If you removed education and experience from both resumes, what's left to be equal? Unless the job requires a masters level, knowing no more about the situation than you provide, I would opt for the one with experience, assuming the experience is in the same field as the opening. The masters, I assume, brings little more to the table other than the fact that the additional sheepskin exists. If you're worried that some oversight agency might challenge you based solely on the education, there's not much chance that would happen.
I personally have a soft spot for degreed people with little experience. It takes guts (and dedication) to go to school and spend 4 years (in this case 6 or 7) to receive a degree.
It is definately a catch 22.
For example, a college professor with experience and a Master's Degree, probably would not be as in demand, and could not command as high of a salary, as a college professor with no experience, but a doctorate degree.
On the other hand, if its the type of job where the extra education really won't effect the performance and really is not so valued, go for the experience.
Good Luck!
It takes more guts to work your way up right after high school than to go directly off to college on your parents' dime (usually) and have all your focus be on school. Try working full time and going to school almost full time. Having to switch gears everyday from school to work and manage a career, WHILE GAINING VALUABLE EXPERIENCE that you don't gain in college, takes guts.
Sorry, like I said...it's a soft spot. Choose the person with more experience!!
"HR Baby"
Jen Burmeister
HR Specialist
NBPTS
[email]jburmeister@nbpts.org[/email]
Most folks these days work their way through school, it is just too expensive not too.
An ideal person would be one that had both a degree and experience, right?.
I know many people that have done both, and I don't beleive their is a right or wrong way. It is just natural for most people to side with the person who is more like yourself. We are all narcissists at heart x0:)
And, by the way, interview both employees - see who "fits" into your culture more. By meeting each person face to face, you will be able to see who will fit the job and culture better. A resume is not everything.
"HR Baby"
Jen Burmeister
HR Specialist
NBPTS
[email]jburmeister@nbpts.org[/email]
Like most others here, you really need to look at the position you need to fill and what the company environment is. But, whoever you hire, be sure and have enough time to train them properly. Don't assume that their experience alone or education alone will make them successful.
The post saying interview both to see about fit is right on. How an individual "fits in" with the company and it's culture is as important as technical ability. As for degree versus experience, since there appears to be be no educational requirement for this position, I would go with lesser degree and experience. Myself, I had the opportunity to go straight through after my Bachelors degree to get my Masters but opted not to.
When I did go back, I know that I got much more out of the experience. Instead of having to agree with everything the instructor said, I had 4+ years of real world experience which made for some excellent discussions/disagreements with the instructors, some who had not been out of the classroom in over a decade. Sometimes they came around to agree with me, sometimes I changed my view, and a number of times we agreed to disagree. But without experience, I would not have gotten nearly as much out of my Masters degree.
Well there is my two cents worth.
Balloonman
There's a great myth about the value of experience. Twenty-something years ago, one of my college professors told me that given the choice between two candidates of equal educational background, he'd take the one who demonstrated the skill level of what the position needed not only at the moment, but also what the position would need to grow into. He said he'd known plenty of people who worked in a field or position for 30 years, but very few had 30 years of experience. Rather, most people had 3 years of experience stretched out 10 times.
In reality, it basically takes a year to learn a job. One complete cycle. Another year to implement whatever improvements are needed to improve the workflow and productivity of the position relative to internal and external customers. And another year to settle in. The fourth year should be the growth year, either into another position internally or by allowing the individual to use h/her creativity to improve and grow the capabilities of the position.
Personally, every position I've ever had, I've been hired over people with more experience, as I usually had none relevant to what I was applying. The day after I graduated H.S. I started work as a manager/bookeeper of the local cable t.v. office on the strength of serving as Treasurer for our HS band for 4 months. My first executive position (VP HR) came to me before age 30, and I'd never been totally in charge of an operation of such magnitude. Never handled legal issues, never knew all the labor laws. I learned, though, and quickly, because I was so totally fascinated with my chosen field. I went on to do things on a national and international level, and now I just speak & write on the field. I'm not even 40.
Every VP I've hired had no experience. They've all been the best performers in their respective positions, because they had drive and interest and were not bothered with ego issues.
Don't mire yourself in experience. Really think through all the aspects of the position you're hiring for and ask yourself if a degree is necessary (the man who made me a VP had a HS diploma and was the longest serving and most successful president of a financial institution in our region). Three years is the most "experience" you'd need to have anyone step-in in a pinch; otherwise, the most you'd ever need to look for is 12 - 18 months. A radical practice, but when I implemented my theories, our turnover went from 51% to 9% and we went from being a $1 mil average annual growth to growing $10 mil all in only 10 months from implementation.
Once you figure out what is actually needed for each position, write it down in your job descriptions so you can be consistent and so can your antecessors.
Hope this helps. If you have any specific questions, I'll be glad to help off-list.
>Here's a great hypothetical for a Friday:
>
>You have two job applicants applying for the same position. Every
>thing on their resume is equal execpt to things: experience and
>education. One applicant has a BS degree with several years
>experience and the other applicant has no experience but has obtained
>a master's degree. All other things equal, which one would you choose
>to fill the position?
>
>What would YOU do?
After several years of performing both paralegal and HR work, I went back to school and obtained my degree, while working full time and raising two children. My boss said the degree "was just a piece of paper to show you're qualified to do the job you've been doing for five years anyway". To the Board, it was worth a raise and a new job description, but my duties remained exactly the same.
Now, when I hire employees, I will take a less qualified employee based on how well I think she or he will fit in my organization. If they are at all educable and have the basic skills I need, they can be trained. If they are not educable and don't have basic skills, I don't hire them. I've seldom been wrong in my assessment and currently have a staff other departments envy. They stay with me in spite of offers of more money and less work because I managed to look for the potential each displayed.