3 ms·

Sorry about the other response. It was flippant like yours was, but two wrongs don't make a right. The real issue is that in many industries you don't just wa

Sorry about the other response. It was flippant like yours was, but two wrongs don't make a right. The real issue is that in many industries you don't just walk into a top job with no experience. If I'm hiring a technician, it's going to be someone with experience because in this profession they will have started as a kennel keeper, then moved up to assistant, then started doing more technical work, usually as they are in technician school, and then they will be able to work as a registered technician. Sometimes experience can be almost equivalent to having school, although there are a few things that an unlicensed/unregistered technician cannot legally do. All that experience is much more valuable than just the book learning, and you can't make up for it with a few months training.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
I certainly wasn't trying to be flippant. The approach you previously (something like "I need to get people who've already acquired the experience") is very common in the USA today, but less so in e.g. northern European countries. The approach you explicity describe here (the existence of a training/experience pathway) is something that you currently require to exist, but seem less willing to be the provider of. I understand that there are going to be employment situations where providing those training pathways is impossible (or almost impossible). But particularly in the USA, we've gone too far in the other direction: offloading the generation of "experienced" to other, unnamed and unidentified people and organizations, and then expecting to be able to reap what others have sown.
- projektfu 7y ago
  I see what you're saying. But let's put it a different way. Let's say I need a technician. If I have an existing employee who can move into that role, great, but I'm a small organization, like many others. Otherwise I have to hire one. Some technicians will have no experience as a tech, others will have 1 year experience, others will have more. If I can hire one with more, it's likely a better hire, even at a higher rate. Otherwise I have to hire the inexperienced one. This is where I disagree that aptitude is more important. The experienced tech has probably already demonstrated aptitude. The new grad/career riser's aptitude I'd have to guess based on references and interview. The inexperienced person would not be able to hit the ground running. In order to have that person ready for the moment they were needed, I would have to have a lot of slack in a very small organization. It'd be a lot different if I were a manager at Siemens needing a new mechanical engineer.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    That makes sense as far as it goes. But it also means that you are implicitly relying on the existence of other organizations to train people to a level where you feel you can hire them. That's OK, as long as you don't try to deny this. Why do I think that's important? Because those other organizations are carrying the costs of training for you. Should they want some sort of social payback (of any kind) to reflect this, it seems wise to me that you'd recognize the benefit that you accrue from this sort of thing, and be supportive of it.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago

I certainly wasn't trying to be flippant. The approach you previously (something like "I need to get people who've already acquired the experience") is very common in the USA today, but less so in e.g. northern European countries. The approach you explicity describe here (the existence of a training/experience pathway) is something that you currently require to exist, but seem less willing to be the provider of. I understand that there are going to be employment situations where providing those training pathways is impossible (or almost impossible). But particularly in the USA, we've gone too far in the other direction: offloading the generation of "experienced" to other, unnamed and unidentified people and organizations, and then expecting to be able to reap what others have sown.

projektfu 7y ago
I see what you're saying. But let's put it a different way. Let's say I need a technician. If I have an existing employee who can move into that role, great, but I'm a small organization, like many others. Otherwise I have to hire one. Some technicians will have no experience as a tech, others will have 1 year experience, others will have more. If I can hire one with more, it's likely a better hire, even at a higher rate. Otherwise I have to hire the inexperienced one. This is where I disagree that aptitude is more important. The experienced tech has probably already demonstrated aptitude. The new grad/career riser's aptitude I'd have to guess based on references and interview. The inexperienced person would not be able to hit the ground running. In order to have that person ready for the moment they were needed, I would have to have a lot of slack in a very small organization. It'd be a lot different if I were a manager at Siemens needing a new mechanical engineer.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  That makes sense as far as it goes. But it also means that you are implicitly relying on the existence of other organizations to train people to a level where you feel you can hire them. That's OK, as long as you don't try to deny this. Why do I think that's important? Because those other organizations are carrying the costs of training for you. Should they want some sort of social payback (of any kind) to reflect this, it seems wise to me that you'd recognize the benefit that you accrue from this sort of thing, and be supportive of it.