Technology

59223 readers

3096 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

214

It’s No Surprise That “Skills-Based” Hiring Has Not Worked (www.forbes.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/technology

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article outlines an opinion that organizations either tried skills based hiring and reverted to degree required hiring because it was warranted, or they didn't adapt their process in spite of executive vision.

Since this article is non industry specific, what are your observations or opinions of the technology sector? What about the general business sector?

Should first world employees of businesses be required to obtain degrees if they reasonably expect a business related job?

Do college experiences and academic rigor reveal higher achieving employees?

Is undergraduate education a minimum standard for a more enlightened society? Or a way to hold separation between classes of people and status?

Is a masters degree the new way to differentiate yourself where the undergrad degree was before?

Edit: multiple typos, I guess that's proof that I should have done more college 😄

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce

I'm not disagreeing with you. I would submit that this is already true for other reasons. Speaking specifically of IT or INFOSEC fields, companies currently have extremely high expectations or experience requirements/desires.

This has been a problem for the INFOSEC field where there's a shortage, but companies don't want to hire entry level candidates with little to no experience. They want reasoned, veteran INFOSEC practitioners, which there isn't enough of.

@[email protected]

generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans

@[email protected]

Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans

I like that you both brought this up. There's a real life example of this in the US military. It's a well known benefit/incentive for military service that they would fund your college education if you work for them long enough. You signed your service contract, but if you met that, you got your education for 'free' if you want to call it that. It's a little different in you might be killed in a stupid political war along the way, but it shows that the idea is practical and can work.

I guess if I had the choice of being hired at a really decent company and they would fund some highly sought after training as long as I gave them a reasonable number or years of employment with reasonable compensation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

On the other had, the SyFi fan that I am, I could see a bit of a dystopian future where you have to belong to companies for a while to start off in life. If you consider that people now start off in massive student loan dept, the dystopian ownership is currently banks while people take up to 20+ years to repay student loans.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Personally, I think education should be free to all, rich or poor, as its the summation of the human experience thus far.

Or in other words, it's our birthright

No one should have the right or ability to paygate it, and that includes the state. The labs necessary should be publically funded because society would suffer more for having less physicists and chemists than an abundance of them, for reasons I hope are obvious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

True. Even though many will argue against this citing the 'practicalities' involved, this is just another instance of long vs. short term investment (in general, not just financial terms). Long term investment (like free education and state funded science) is supposed to be harder and more costly in the short term, because the payoff comes later, but it is much higher and leads to a healthier system, making things easier, incuding more investment. Whereas short term is usually damaging to the system and makes things harder long term.

I really like the saying that an idealist is a realist (or pragmatist) just using a longer timeline.