20 or more years of experience with high school education and someone comes in right out of college earning more per hour. This should be discrimination. The college graduate should not make more because they went on to college. The person with more experience has to train the college graduate.
I'm not sure how anyone can honestly justify genuinely qualified individuals getting passed over for either employment or advancement merely because they don't possess a degree. I've been around recent college graduates and seasoned veterans alike and I'll take the seasoned veteran every time. That piece of paper you have hanging on your wall that you paid thousands of dollars for and spent years acquiring means absolutely nothing to me. If you can't back up that paper with real world experience then I'll have to spend years training you to be productive in the real world, not the perfect little bubble of college. That's not to say that I'd dismiss someone simply due the fact they have an advanced education, just that I'll look more closely at their experience. Four years of college versus four years of experience, sorry, but I'll take the four years experience every single day, every single time.
And yes, any position that REQUIRES a degree, in my eyes is discrimination when not accompanied by the acceptance of a number of years of experience in lieu of and should therefore be illegal.
If you want to do right by your company and your society, you should open your mind a bit to the fact that there are people that are very well qualified in their field that don't possess a degree.
That is the real question. Many individuals are self taught, born with razor- like determination, are self motivated and goal oriented without the need to "study" these important concepts in a formal education. In today's society, its not these foundations that new students seek but rather a requirement and certain entitlement that they have been brainwashed is a necessity to succeed (most colleges are big money institutions after all). That is the reason for this debate- is it not? Hiring managers often discriminate half of the potential candidates that would be PERFECT for their various positions because of a lack of " a piece of paper". Some fields, of course may require technical degrees and no doubt a formal education makes most sense, but others positions just take common sense- is there a Common Sense course 101 out there? Studies show that we retain roughly 10% of what we are taught in a classroom setting. Most real learning is through repetition... Which one would learn where...? On the job ... Through experience.
We all agree that discrimination based on any of the EEOC protected classes (Race / Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry. Sex or Gender. Age, Physical or mental disability, or Veteran status).
Certainly this seems to indicate that we should be "blind" to any individual differentiation between candidates other than their ability to perform job requirements, and how well they can do so. Here again, if there is a direct correlation that is specifically tied to initial or advanced degree completion, it certainly would seem rational and fair to view the candidate as qualified. Then again, if a candidate has demonstrated through 10, 20, or 30 years of successful experience that they are capable of performing a certain job with a degree, logical thinking would seem rational and fair to also view the candidate as qualified. Having performed in the education arena for over 30 years myself (Commercial industry), I know that people have different learning styles, mental capabilities, etc., for us to require everyone to comply with the same learning requirement seems to indicate an indifference to these different abilities (or disabilities) and indifference to a learning disability falls within the EEOC guidelines as discrimination against a protected class.
When applying for an internal position I was declined an interview because I did not have a degree. I have 30 years of related experience and went through a 3 year apprenticeship. I have nearly twice as much experience as any other candidate. My performance reviews have consistently been exceptional and I am the only leader in this department that has developed leadership skills with my direct reports.
I have over 15 years of experience in my career as an Accounts Payable Associate. Although I have over 50 credit hours toward my Associates Degree - due to becoming the only income earner in my household, outstanding student loans and academic institutions not offering the classes I need to complete my degree on campus or online I am frustrated that I have only been able to find employment as a temp. Recently a new associate was brought in that has a Bachelor's Degree. However this associates spends more time on their cell phone than working. The associate is perpetually late and leaves early. I on the other hand arrive on time and stay later as needed. This associate is able to earn a higher hourly wage, is eligible for benefits and gains all the glory. Because I don't have a degree I am not eligible for a permanent position even though I have been performing the duties individually and successfully for the past 10 months. Explain to me how that is fair? Also having worked in more than one type of industry each company has it's own accounting system. The credits I earned academically gave me the framework or the basis of what I need to know but experience has given me the skills I've developed along the way.
The topic is really hard to talk about - maybe just because of the society? If I don't have a degree and did not go to a well known University, does that make me less worthy? And what about if I did go to a good University, got my degree and want to find a job? One may have experience in a certain field, the other - a degree that should guarantee that you have the knowledge. But there is no guarantee in any of these situations.
Actually, it is easy to think that someone who did not go to a University was just wasting his life and doing nothing - leading a easy life and enjoying all the pleasures. But that may not be the case. The same goes for the University graduate. He should have studied hard, he should have gotten skills and knowledge - you do see his degree, don't you? But it may not mean anything, maybe he did not actually study, just went there to crawl through the examinations...
So, my opinion is that education is really important, but it does not reflect your knowledge in every situation. Yes, to be a good engineer or a doctor you must have a degree, you must go through examinations and so on. But even then... Will you be a good one? And if talking about people that are working in creative areas - let's admit, there are a lot of those, - do you think that the college or university degree is the most important in this situation? I do not. I think that even if one has it, he or she may not be as creative and motivated. Skills can be built while working and self-study.
I can tell you without hesitation that I would rather hire someone with no degree and 2 years of relevant experience than someone with a degree and no relevant experience. Now granted, having both would be nice, but a degree is not a reflection of knowledge or ability, whereas experience and success in a given field is a direct reflection of both.
I chose not to get a degree after watching many people get one along with thousands of dollars debt and not find a decent paying job. I chose a college diploma in an area of study that was in a high paying industry. I've done well and have 15 years experience now, but cannot move into Management with my company because I don't have a degree. Also, in pursuit of my PMP certification, I feel discriminated against because they require 4500 hrs experience for those with a degree and 7500 hours experience for those without a degree, yet they don't even specify what kind of degree. It all seems very presumptuous and unfair.
Because some people have hands on experience. Also, the job may be better learned by hands on experience. A college degree can set people back financially for the rest of their lives! Some people may never be able to obtain a degree due to their financial situation. It IS discrimination!
What will prohibit me from hiring my high school buddy who never did anything with his life, who never worked for anything, who never got an education, but he is so fun to be around? What will prohibit me from appointing him a manager to an engineering division, when all qualifications based on education are thrown out of the window? I could easily hire 5-6 of them to manage all my divisions. Will I lose people? Sure, but I can hire others. And the 5-6 buddies of mine will all be happy managing my divisions. And my boss will be happy, because my managers will be happy, and the work from those under my managers will still be done...One way or another.
You think it's not happening already? Think again...
It should be the other way around: I have managers who discriminate on the basis of educational credentials: they will avoid the MS holders, not to mention the PhDs, since they are such a threat to them. And some of them keep bringing me every idiot who got a drive-by degree from nowhere, over others with impeccable educational qualifications. You believe it doesn't matter? Think again...
They need to base hiring decisions on something. If they can't consider educational credentials then all that is left is personal presentation in the interview and activity from outside of school. A person could just join a fancy-sounding club and be very bubbly and friendly and attractive and get a job as a neurosurgeon or a nuclear scientist without knowing anything about the subject matter at all.
Discrimination occurs when someone is refused service for something they cannot control. Something like skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. We all make a choice on where to attend school, what to major in, and what degrees to pursue. If someone chooses not to hire me because of that choice, that's not discrimination.
Educational discrimination should not be illegal as some jobs do require a certain amount of education in order for the person to actually understand and complete the tasks handed to them. Without it we would have people with no education working as doctors, electricians, fire fighters, and things would not go very well.
The whole reason individuals spend (arguably) obscene amounts of money and time obtaining a higher level of education is an attempt to be separated from other applicants who did not, inadvertently displaying either some distinct level of knowledge or technical training in the area of the particular field. To consider such criteria as illegal would seem to be very problematic. For instance, would you want an architect who had absolutely no training or education to design your family home? Or if you needed heart surgery, would you rather have a surgeon with a medical degree to perform it, or just someone who claims they can do it, but admits they have no technical training or education in that area? Educational credentials in some instances should not necessarily be a discriminating factor in choosing an applicant, but in some instances it definitely should be a very important, if not the most important, factor in doing so.
I do not believe discrimination is a good thing, but it should not be illegal in this case. Some people do not have education credentials some are looking for. If this law was passed people who did not get a job would sue companies and we would have a big mess.
While it seems unfair that you can be over qualified for a position especially when no position you are qualified for is open thats life. Employers are looking for people that fit their culture during this recession many qualified individuals are applying for and taking jobs considered below them what happens if the economy improves. They leave in droves leaving their former companies to scramble for labor.
People do not know what they are talking about. They give facts without evidence. They do not know what they are talking about when the post. People do not back up there facts of opinions so they can not be trusted. If people backed up there facts than there facts will be more trustworthy.
Anyone who doesn't have any clue what they are talking about could put something on this website as an opinion, and that is not credible. This website should be purely based on fact and professional facts. Only people who have actual credentials should be allowed to post information on this site.
I have always valued those with experience. Sought them out for what they know and can teach me. But by the same token, who designs and develops the systems that these people have experience with? A person with education and experience is best, but lacking experience and having the education provides people another opportunity to learn from those with experience. Both are needed and valuable.