Experience -v- Qualifications

mgaw

depends what field you are in my background is high end cooking...qualifications totally irrelevant experience was paramount

chrispy108

mudslide73 said:

The courses are easier, students get more support and they're motorvated to work harder because they've paid to be there.

You what?

Students paid to be there? A tiny fraction of sixth formers (Nearly all care leavers or disabled students) get a small bursary (Up to £1,200 a year), to cover books and transport. Hardly paid to be there.

University students are paying more to go than anyone before them.

ThePrettyDamned

fretmeister said:

I like surgeons to have plenty of both.

I don't mind inexperienced surgeons , they're usually more careful and care more because they're newer and the public healthcare system has not yet broken their humanity . 

This post may contain hidden humour . 

Sporky

chrispy108 said:

mudslide73 said:

The courses are easier, students get more support and they're motorvated to work harder because they've paid to be there.

You what?

Students paid to be there? A tiny fraction of sixth formers (Nearly all care leavers or disabled students) get a small bursary (Up to £1,200 a year), to cover books and transport. Hardly paid to be there.

University students are paying more to go than anyone before them.

He said they've paid, not they're paid.

Danny1969

Experience tends to count the most for me. I remember being on my HND Electronics course with a bunch of guys who could do the maths and quote the laws all day but give them a TV to fix and they wouldn't have a clue what half of it was inside let alone how to fix it. In the world of repair .... especially quick cost effective repair experience is crucial, preferably a lot of years experience 

Musically as well I work with all kinds of people from youngsters fresh out of ACM and the like to older guys who have been playing live and earning from music for 30 years ..... the experience the older guys have just makes the job easier in general, the communication, the antisipation and sixth sense you develop over many years of gigging with different  people isn't something you can teach or gain a qualification in

ToneControl

many senior managers over 50 have no degree, but are bright. They get on fine

50% of 21 year olds now have degrees, so  ones from  less-good unis may need to upgrade themselves with a Masters

It's very unlikely that someone over 40 already in senior management would get any advantage  doing an MBA
Better to spend less time and money with a  Management development trainer to sharpen up any  weaknesses, rather than be fleeced  financially and  burn up loads of time doing a Masters

A PhD would be a huge mistake for him , unless planning on changing to a lecturing career

ToneControl

Snap said:

thermionic said:

This is just educational inflation. The value of your qualifications decreases over time because basically, exams get easier. A

sorry matey, but that is absolute BS. There's more to education than simply being able to do a 3 hour exam or two.

My daughter is doing A levels now, final year. Of the 3 she is doing 2 of the subjects I did at A level. I would say if anything the standards are higher now. Assessment is constant, and they have to show continued application throughout the whole 2 years to get a good final grade. As opposed to when I did them, if you crammed like chuff for the last few months you basically could have your foot off the gas for the rest of the course.

These days, any student who does well at A level shows IMO a very high level of ability. Consistent ability.

DIfferent story for GCSE, but I think that A levels are harder now, certainly harder to get a good mark, and harder to get into a top class university.

My degree entry requirement was BCD (Newc Uni)- now its AAB. IMO getting and A today is harder than it was then, and an A* is truly outstanding.

It's widely known that an A level grade today translates to 2 grade lower in the early 1980s, hence the Uni quotes now
I think it was 10%-20% of kids that did A levels then, now it's most kids

btw A levels are now  moving back to solely 3 hours exams at the end 

We have to assume that  although some bright kids left school at 16 in  the 1980s,  most 6th formers were in the top 30% of ability, so most of the people now doing A levels would be from an ability range that would not have  attempted them in the 80s, yet many do now get A levels  
From my experience with  my daughters going through school now, the  teachers are far more professional,  and higher A level grades are far more  common.    The trouble with this is - as an employer, how do you compare  applicants who took A levels in 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015?

Anyway grade inflation does not have to happen, if you  allocate grades by  % - top 5% get A*, etc

Uni grade inflation is ludicrous

ToneControl

octatonic said:

thermionic said:

This is just educational inflation. The value of your qualifications decreases over time because basically, exams get easier. Actually, they're not even exams anymore - they don't experience that pressure of having to perform in a 3-hour exam on a particular day. When I did A-levels in the mid-80s most people did 3, some did 2, and you did really well if you got ABC or BBB. Now, everybody does 4 or 5 and they all get As or A*s in everything.

This.
I did a recent degree and what got you a 1st was laughable really.
People with very low levels of knowledge and that hardly ever attended were getting passed.
University seems to be a cash extraction process rather than an educational pursuit.

yes, I've seen some stats, I think many  old polys now give 20% or more 1sts, at least 50% 2:1s
in the 80s, many polys would not award any 1st  for several years

The top redbricks  used to have this scheme: 10% 1st;  10% 3rd, most of the rest 2:2s. 2:1s were about 20% I think

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11589598/Top-10-universities-for-first-class-degrees.html
27% firsts and over 50% 2:1 seems common now

I think many unis treat students as  free money, and care nothing for whether the education offered is relevant or  appropriate, I saw the early  part of this change first hand:  Lecturers were bullied into  more lenient marking from the early 90s

MattFGBI

This all comes down to the job and the industry. 

I also believe that once you hit a certain level in business it's all about experience and nothing about qualifications. When I look to employ people now I'm not that bothered by qualifications. Unless they have terrible grades. 

octatonic

ToneControl said:

octatonic said:

thermionic said:

This is just educational inflation. The value of your qualifications decreases over time because basically, exams get easier. Actually, they're not even exams anymore - they don't experience that pressure of having to perform in a 3-hour exam on a particular day. When I did A-levels in the mid-80s most people did 3, some did 2, and you did really well if you got ABC or BBB. Now, everybody does 4 or 5 and they all get As or A*s in everything.

This.
I did a recent degree and what got you a 1st was laughable really.
People with very low levels of knowledge and that hardly ever attended were getting passed.
University seems to be a cash extraction process rather than an educational pursuit.

yes, I've seen some stats, I think many  old polys now give 20% or more 1sts, at least 50% 2:1s
in the 80s, many polys would not award any 1st  for several years

The top redbricks  used to have this scheme: 10% 1st;  10% 3rd, most of the rest 2:2s. 2:1s were about 20% I think

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11589598/Top-10-universities-for-first-class-degrees.html
27% firsts and over 50% 2:1 seems common now

I think many unis treat students as  free money, and care nothing for whether the education offered is relevant or  appropriate, I saw the early  part of this change first hand:  Lecturers were bullied into  more lenient marking from the early 90s

I should have said that I went to the shittest university in the land as well.

I imagine Oxford/Cambridge/LSE are a bit stricter in giving out distinctions.
Londonmet was one step away from presenting you with one during freshers week.

ToneControl

octatonic said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11589598/Top-10-universities-for-first-class-degrees.html
27% firsts and over 50% 2:1 seems common now

I think many unis treat students as  free money, and care nothing for whether the education offered is relevant or  appropriate, I saw the early  part of this change first hand:  Lecturers were bullied into  more lenient marking from the early 90s

I should have said that I went to the shittest university in the land as well.

I imagine Oxford/Cambridge/LSE are a bit stricter in giving out distinctions.
Londonmet was one step away from presenting you with one during freshers week.

just rechecked that article

"According to figures released this year by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), one in five students were awarded firsts last year; more than double that of a decade ago. "

Oxford is 31% firsts
UCL 33% firsts
Cambridge 29% firsts

Oxford gives more than 93% of grads a 1st or 2:1
https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/undergraduate-degree-classifications?wssl=1

Snap

in terms of employability - right now this debate is highly relevant to me, as I am actively recruiting. What is more important to me is their experience. I'm looking for a particular skill set, and experience demos it, so qualifications are of secondary importance for this position. Tbh, I think work/life experience would trump qualifications for me (as an employer) - I'd sooner take on someone with nous, enthusiasm and life skills than a 1st class honours graduate with no charisma.

I'd never discriminate against someone with experience, or an interesting life story, cos they didn't ahve the academic experience. I'd sooner interview them and find out more.

chrispy108

Sporky said:

He said they've paid, not they're paid.

Doh!

I think the arguments about qualifications come down to one issue: do you want a certain grade to tell you what % of a group of people that person is, or do you want a grade to demonstrate a certain level of competency with the subject. At the moment they're both an neither.


If an A*/A/First/2:1 say "this person can do these things" then wouldn't you expect that to improve if teaching is improving and students are more motivated (surely not a bad thing?).

Clarky

I'd have though that when it comes to getting a job it'll be down to the hiring person..
what is more important to him / her.. the person or the badges on the CV?

ToneControl

chrispy108 said:

Sporky said:

He said they've paid, not they're paid.

Doh!

I think the arguments about qualifications come down to one issue: do you want a certain grade to tell you what % of a group of people that person is, or do you want a grade to demonstrate a certain level of competency with the subject. At the moment they're both an neither.


If an A*/A/First/2:1 say "this person can do these things" then wouldn't you expect that to improve if teaching is improving and students are more motivated (surely not a bad thing?).

depends what you think qualifications are for
AFAIK they are there as an alternative to nepotism and believing  people who are better at  talking a good game,
and so should accurately provide a measurement of  ability and  achievement

So, if now  the top 6% get a A*, and a further 35% get A and B, whereas  it used to be  6% with an A, then how do you compare 2 candidates from different years, one with A*A*A*, and one with  BBB? Surely this makes the  qualification less useful.
The  exam measures how well you learn a taught subject,  and how well you can recall that  and act logically on that in an exam. If teaching improves, then I think the percentages of high grades should be kept constant, so that the ability and motivation of those with a specific grade is relatively constant 

ToneControl

Snap said:

in terms of employability - right now this debate is highly relevant to me, as I am actively recruiting. What is more important to me is their experience. I'm looking for a particular skill set, and experience demos it, so qualifications are of secondary importance for this position. Tbh, I think work/life experience would trump qualifications for me (as an employer) - I'd sooner take on someone with nous, enthusiasm and life skills than a 1st class honours graduate with no charisma.

you say that, but there are some very good bullshitters out there, who turn out to be a bit crap when you ask them to do something complicated. Qualifications give you something  scientific and  reliable, rather than just relying on an interview

A qualification is a filter - those with it could definitely reach a set level of achievement, those without the qualification are unproven unless they have specific skills and references.

However,  5-10 years into a career, it's a blend of both, but  most people still notice the higher grades and degree results when recruiting

chrispy108

ToneControl said:

The  exam measures how well you learn a taught subject,  and how well you can recall that  and act logically on that in an exam. If teaching improves, then I think the percentages of high grades should be kept constant, so that the ability and motivation of those with a specific grade is relatively constant

I can't agree with your point, if you set the bar to be an A at a certain level, and more people reach it, then surely that's a good thing, as more people are good enough to do the job you're hiring for? If teaching improves then surely more people can do your job, so why should only the same amount get the qualification?

Do you need someone who is in the top x% of their class, or do you just need someone who can do the things you need them to do? So what if that was 4% one year and 8% the next year.

ToneControl

chrispy108 said:

ToneControl said:

The  exam measures how well you learn a taught subject,  and how well you can recall that  and act logically on that in an exam. If teaching improves, then I think the percentages of high grades should be kept constant, so that the ability and motivation of those with a specific grade is relatively constant

I can't agree with your point, if you set the bar to be an A at a certain level, and more people reach it, then surely that's a good thing, as more people are good enough to do the job you're hiring for? If teaching improves then surely more people can do your job, so why should only the same amount get the qualification?

Do you need someone who is in the top x% of their class, or do you just need someone who can do the things you need them to do? So what if that was 4% one year and 8% the next year.

that's the difference between a vocational and a  non-vocational qualification

I agreed that for vocational, you just need to pass, and get a mark beyond that  if poss,
but for non-vocational, yes  I want someone specifically from the top 10%, not someone thicker who happened to take the exam in an easier year, or who was better-coached than people used to be 

So if Oxford now gives over 93% a 2:1 or 1st, then I should take one of them with a 2:1,   rather than considering someone with a 2:2 from an earlier year, or a different Uni?

ToneControl

For example, I know someone who has made a living coaching kids for the 11+
My thought has always been "what's the point? if they are not bright enough, they will struggle at a grammar school"

On my degree, one guy was always struggling with all the material, it took him 1 hour to understand some stuff that most could get in 2 mins or 5 mins
What use would he be in a job requiring repeated fast thinking? His self-discipline in doing 3 times the homework of others would not be a viable tactic at work. So - for harder jobs, I think you need a genuine minimum  raw ability level, matched with experience and attitude. I've struggled with many  who have been recruited by others who are not capable of their assigned work, people need all the help they can get in interviewing.

menamestom

Actually I got into the industry I'm in by a 3rd option, psychometric testing.  It was a strange experience.  After a day of testing I had an interview with a professor from Manchester University.  She was so impressed with my results her advice was to forget about the job and pursue the road of academia (strange considering the employer was probaby paying the university a fortune to find suitable candidates).  I was about 25 then and had already had enough of courses.  She said that the results said I had great potential but showed that I had not progressed enough in education.  I said I had a HND and she said 'exactly'.  Anyway, I took the job.  The results in one test were in the top 2%, only problem with that is I don't really know what it was in.  I'm better than 98% of people at something.  It's definitely not chess, dobble or knowing where I've left my personal belongings, unfortunately. Probably just the outstandingly un useful skill of linking 2 seemingly random patterns together.