4 ms·
I think degrees are remaining a requirement because a hiring manager and recruiter at a large company are risk averse. There's an old saying: "Nobody ever got
by akarma 5y ago
I think degrees are remaining a requirement because a hiring manager and recruiter at a large company are risk averse.
There's an old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
It basically means that, if you use IBM for something and it doesn't work out, you can tell your manager "who could've guessed — it's IBM!", and you'll be mostly off the hook. If you were to use some promising new startup, even if it's more likely to do a great job, the fault is squarely on you if it goes wrong.
Similarly, when hiring an engineer, the recruiter and hiring manager can explain away a bad hire to upper management by saying "what a fluke, they have a degree from Harvard!", while they would be in a tougher situation if they made a bad hire and that person had no degree.
- htrp 5y ago>I think degrees are remaining a requirement because a hiring manager and recruiter at a large company are risk averse. To be fair the "minimum requirements" are also a risk averse filter.... you can reject everyone without any issue by saying no one meets the minimum
- specialist 5y ago> I think degrees are remaining a requirement because a hiring manager and recruiter at a large company are risk averse. My take is more judgmental: Our current hazing rituals persist because people can't imagine how it could be otherwise.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoI agree completely. We just can't imagine doing things differently. Fun anecdote: when I was 16 (with a couple years of experience as a developer) I was working for a company on some PHP codebase and they hired someone with a master's degree in computer science to work on it with me. 10 minutes after the first meeting he set his Skype status to "HELP: can anyone teach me PHP programming"