4 ms·

If you're looking for just another mediocre / average corporate drone requiring a degree makes sense. The average person with a degree will outperform an averag

If you're looking for just another mediocre / average corporate drone requiring a degree makes sense. The average person with a degree will outperform an average person without one. But if you're actually trying to hire top level talent a degree shouldn't matter. Someone who's passionate about what they do and intelligent will be able learn from experience and teach themself.

btilly 14y ago
Actually you have it exactly backwards. The average person with a degree will outperform an average person without one. But the average person applying for a particular job who can get in is about equivalent to other people doing the same. But people prefer people with degrees. Therefore, if all else is equal, the average person you hire with a degree is worse than the average person without one. But if you want people to perform at the very top level for computer science stuff, then you both want a top intellect and a degree. (However you, as a company don't realistically have the option of top people.)
- MaysonL 14y ago
  But if you want people to perform at the very top level for computer science stuff, then you both want a top intellect and a degree. (However you, as a company don't realistically have the option of top people.) Then again, there are people (occasionally) like Steve Blank and Ed Fredkin.
- hexagonc 14y ago
  But the average person applying for a particular job who can get in is about equivalent to other people doing the same. But people prefer people with degrees. Therefore, if all else is equal, the average person you hire with a degree is worse than the average person without one. I'm not sure it follows that a person you hire with a degree will be worse than the average person that you hire without a degree. After all, you said "if all else is equal. . . ." If all else is equal than the candidates are equally qualified and the presence or absence of the degree made no difference. I don't see how having a degree by itself (which is the scenario you envision) can ever count against you. If you hire someone without a degree, the most you can conclude is that there was probably at least one person with a degree that was inferior to that individual. The problem is that you don't know how many people with degrees are inferior to this individual. Exact numbers matter in this case; I think that the reason that people prefer people with degrees is because having the degree is more often associated with the required skills than not having the degree.
  - btilly 14y ago
    It does follow. If you're hiring people who are equally attractive to you, and one is attractive in part because of the degree, then for them to be equally attractive they must be worse on your other desired qualifications - such as demonstrated competence. My claim is that demonstrated competence is more important than the degree. Therefore of those two candidates, the one without the degree usually turns out to be better. This is actually true about any discriminated against group (which people without degrees are). On average the discriminated against group may be worse (for whatever historical reasons), but the ones who are good enough to become seriously considered despite that are actually better than the ones you would consider equally desirable. Therefore if you're on the fence about a decision, you should prefer the one who lacks the most obvious signals like degrees, etc. This may sound like an abstract and weird hypothesis. But it is a testable one. For example see http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html for evidence that being willing to hire women into management in a culture where women are discriminated against results in better financial returns for the company that is willing to do so. As for your hypothesis that people with a degree are more likely to have the required skills, that depends heavily on the job. Certainly if you're going to hire someone to work on a compiler, you'd prefer people who know how compilers work. Which gives a big edge to CS grads. But for general software development I'd prefer someone who can quote Code Complete back at me than an average CS grad. (Disclaimer, I have a masters in math, and almost finished my PhD. If you are looking to hire me, and you have an alternate candidate without my academic qualifications who you think is a tossup compared to me, then yes, I am saying that you should hire them instead.)
    - hexagonc 14y ago
      I agree that demonstrated competence is what ultimately matters. The problem that I had with your example is that you said "all things being equal. . . ." That implied that the candidates were both technically competent, only one had a degree and one didn't. I understand your point that candidates that succeed despite not having a degree are probably better than a lot of people with degrees. But you are making a stronger claim than that; you're saying that discriminated groups that succeed in getting hired are probably better than others that also got in. Now, you did provide a link to a study that was true of women but I would want to see evidence specific to people with degrees versus those without. The problem with generalizing the way you seem to be is that the people you hire without a degree may not have been competing against the people you hired with degrees. For example, suppose you have two positions to fill that are basically the same. You fill one position with person A that doesn't have a degree and you fill another position with person B that has a degree. Person A may have gotten the position because they beat people with and without degrees that were also applying to the position. The same applies to person B. On one hand, you're saying that person B will get some level of preferential treatment because he/is has a degree. But on the other hand, you're saying that person A is probably better than person B in a manner that isn't reflected in the basic competency tests that were used to hire them in the first place. However, at this point you're comparing apples to oranges because they weren't hired from the pool of candidates. Moreover, I don't know what you mean by "better". You might say that someone that succeeds despite lacking a degree is probably more passionate than an equally hireable person that had a degree. He/she may have more job experience. He/she may have passed with an A+ from the school of hard knocks. It seems to me that the only way to quantify this and aggregate over individual differences would be to compare the long-term salaries of people with degrees versus those without. Pay may seem like a coarse measure of whether an employee is better or not (I should know because I left a job in which I was underpaid for years despite being productive) but it is at least a simple measure of how much a company actually values an employee.
rbanffy 14y ago
I get bcantrill's point. A degree ensures the candidate meets a certain baseline. I graduated as an electric engineer (specializing in computers) and had to educate myself in a lot of stuff a comp-sci student has to, but with the help of an experienced teacher, in order to graduate. There is no assurance I got everything right.

btilly 14y ago

Actually you have it exactly backwards. The average person with a degree will outperform an average person without one. But the average person applying for a particular job who can get in is about equivalent to other people doing the same. But people prefer people with degrees. Therefore, if all else is equal, the average person you hire with a degree is worse than the average person without one. But if you want people to perform at the very top level for computer science stuff, then you both want a top intellect and a degree. (However you, as a company don't realistically have the option of top people.)

MaysonL 14y ago
But if you want people to perform at the very top level for computer science stuff, then you both want a top intellect and a degree. (However you, as a company don't realistically have the option of top people.) Then again, there are people (occasionally) like Steve Blank and Ed Fredkin.
hexagonc 14y ago
But the average person applying for a particular job who can get in is about equivalent to other people doing the same. But people prefer people with degrees. Therefore, if all else is equal, the average person you hire with a degree is worse than the average person without one. I'm not sure it follows that a person you hire with a degree will be worse than the average person that you hire without a degree. After all, you said "if all else is equal. . . ." If all else is equal than the candidates are equally qualified and the presence or absence of the degree made no difference. I don't see how having a degree by itself (which is the scenario you envision) can ever count against you. If you hire someone without a degree, the most you can conclude is that there was probably at least one person with a degree that was inferior to that individual. The problem is that you don't know how many people with degrees are inferior to this individual. Exact numbers matter in this case; I think that the reason that people prefer people with degrees is because having the degree is more often associated with the required skills than not having the degree.
- btilly 14y ago
  It does follow. If you're hiring people who are equally attractive to you, and one is attractive in part because of the degree, then for them to be equally attractive they must be worse on your other desired qualifications - such as demonstrated competence. My claim is that demonstrated competence is more important than the degree. Therefore of those two candidates, the one without the degree usually turns out to be better. This is actually true about any discriminated against group (which people without degrees are). On average the discriminated against group may be worse (for whatever historical reasons), but the ones who are good enough to become seriously considered despite that are actually better than the ones you would consider equally desirable. Therefore if you're on the fence about a decision, you should prefer the one who lacks the most obvious signals like degrees, etc. This may sound like an abstract and weird hypothesis. But it is a testable one. For example see http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html for evidence that being willing to hire women into management in a culture where women are discriminated against results in better financial returns for the company that is willing to do so. As for your hypothesis that people with a degree are more likely to have the required skills, that depends heavily on the job. Certainly if you're going to hire someone to work on a compiler, you'd prefer people who know how compilers work. Which gives a big edge to CS grads. But for general software development I'd prefer someone who can quote Code Complete back at me than an average CS grad. (Disclaimer, I have a masters in math, and almost finished my PhD. If you are looking to hire me, and you have an alternate candidate without my academic qualifications who you think is a tossup compared to me, then yes, I am saying that you should hire them instead.)
  - hexagonc 14y ago
    I agree that demonstrated competence is what ultimately matters. The problem that I had with your example is that you said "all things being equal. . . ." That implied that the candidates were both technically competent, only one had a degree and one didn't. I understand your point that candidates that succeed despite not having a degree are probably better than a lot of people with degrees. But you are making a stronger claim than that; you're saying that discriminated groups that succeed in getting hired are probably better than others that also got in. Now, you did provide a link to a study that was true of women but I would want to see evidence specific to people with degrees versus those without. The problem with generalizing the way you seem to be is that the people you hire without a degree may not have been competing against the people you hired with degrees. For example, suppose you have two positions to fill that are basically the same. You fill one position with person A that doesn't have a degree and you fill another position with person B that has a degree. Person A may have gotten the position because they beat people with and without degrees that were also applying to the position. The same applies to person B. On one hand, you're saying that person B will get some level of preferential treatment because he/is has a degree. But on the other hand, you're saying that person A is probably better than person B in a manner that isn't reflected in the basic competency tests that were used to hire them in the first place. However, at this point you're comparing apples to oranges because they weren't hired from the pool of candidates. Moreover, I don't know what you mean by "better". You might say that someone that succeeds despite lacking a degree is probably more passionate than an equally hireable person that had a degree. He/she may have more job experience. He/she may have passed with an A+ from the school of hard knocks. It seems to me that the only way to quantify this and aggregate over individual differences would be to compare the long-term salaries of people with degrees versus those without. Pay may seem like a coarse measure of whether an employee is better or not (I should know because I left a job in which I was underpaid for years despite being productive) but it is at least a simple measure of how much a company actually values an employee.

rbanffy 14y ago

I get bcantrill's point. A degree ensures the candidate meets a certain baseline. I graduated as an electric engineer (specializing in computers) and had to educate myself in a lot of stuff a comp-sci student has to, but with the help of an experienced teacher, in order to graduate. There is no assurance I got everything right.