3 ms·

On the other hand, if you reek of obvious potential and ooze ability from every pore, and WGU can get you a degree in six months, why don’t you have that creden

by ip26 4y ago

On the other hand, if you reek of obvious potential and ooze ability from every pore, and WGU can get you a degree in six months, why don’t you have that credential? Credentials don’t really prove ability, but there’s a weird staying power that can come from the “minimum bar” it sets.

latency-guy2 4y ago
Easy, I don't want to pay $4000 to someone who provided me no benefit, gave me negative value because I already wasted my time just completing the exams. In what world would you donate 1 - 5 weeks pay just for the honor of it? I'm not sure plumbers are around here to give you a plaque that says "My toilet is working" for your house guests to ogle at. Yes, I understand that the credential is what removes us from candidacy in job applications, and I also understand that this has a cost benefit to the employee that may exceed $4000 on it's own. But should things be that way? My thinking is no speaking on the employee's side. On the other end it is obvious that at minimum credentials proves to the employer that the employee is at least 4 years old and can read enough to fool another 4 year old. I guess it is also cheaper to filter through thousands of infants who otherwise do not have the same credential. So maybe I'm just pissing into the wind.
- vxNsr 4y ago
  Pre college being a requirement there was still some sort of evaluation the company had to do to decide if you were a good candidate, from their perspective college graduates show more promise and potential. Just as someone applying to college shows more potential of being a good fit to the college if they scored highly on their SAT exam. Is it fair that someone who likely has all the other criteria also has to sit through the embarrassment of an SAT exam when they’re so obviously qualified? Yes. Because that’s a way that universities have found to fairly and easily find good candidates.

by ip26 4y ago

latency-guy2 4y ago

Easy, I don't want to pay $4000 to someone who provided me no benefit, gave me negative value because I already wasted my time just completing the exams. In what world would you donate 1 - 5 weeks pay just for the honor of it? I'm not sure plumbers are around here to give you a plaque that says "My toilet is working" for your house guests to ogle at. Yes, I understand that the credential is what removes us from candidacy in job applications, and I also understand that this has a cost benefit to the employee that may exceed $4000 on it's own. But should things be that way? My thinking is no speaking on the employee's side. On the other end it is obvious that at minimum credentials proves to the employer that the employee is at least 4 years old and can read enough to fool another 4 year old. I guess it is also cheaper to filter through thousands of infants who otherwise do not have the same credential. So maybe I'm just pissing into the wind.

vxNsr 4y ago
Pre college being a requirement there was still some sort of evaluation the company had to do to decide if you were a good candidate, from their perspective college graduates show more promise and potential. Just as someone applying to college shows more potential of being a good fit to the college if they scored highly on their SAT exam. Is it fair that someone who likely has all the other criteria also has to sit through the embarrassment of an SAT exam when they’re so obviously qualified? Yes. Because that’s a way that universities have found to fairly and easily find good candidates.