3 ms·

It might not mean much to most recruiters, since most of them aren't technical themselves. But as someone who hires, and is technical, you would absolutely hav

It might not mean much to most recruiters, since most of them aren't technical themselves. But as someone who hires, and is technical, you would absolutely have an advantage if I were hiring for a marketing position (honestly, if I were, I'd reach out to you now). It's a no-brainer for me - especially for traditionally non-technical positions like marketing, where technical skills beyond MS Office are rare. I think the bias against "University of Phoenix" type degrees doesn't really apply to online courses like Stanford's. Everybody knows that they're money-making schemes - so it frankly calls your judgment into question if you do it. I would wonder - why did this person choose to spend time and money on a University of Phoenix degree, rather than just take the free Stanford courses and learn on their own? The issue with the Stanford online courses is that it's common knowledge that not many people stick it through to the end / pay attention. So having it on your resume would get my attention, but I would need to verify that you actually absorbed the knowledge. Once that concern is addressed though, you absolutely have an advantage in my book.

trg2 12y ago
All fair points. I guess my concern is that most recruiters aren't you, and probably aren't anyone commenting on this thread. My bias is that mass-adoption (and ultimately, online learning as an alternative to a ~100k education) will only happen when an entry-level recruiter is able to filter through and use online courses as a hiring signal. So far, the only people I've seen get anywhere close to this, or care at all, are very technical founders hiring for a very small team, usually in the valley. Even if they respect the course or what was learned, they don't actively seek these people out. I've seen startup founders aggressively seeking out and trying to hire Stanford / Harvard / Princeton alumni because they're alumni. Yet I've never heard anyone saying "Let's go recruit and hire CS184 grads". ... yet.
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  Successful recruiters are efficient. By that, I mean they want the shortest route possible from getting a job to fill to filling the job. Filling as many jobs as possible with qualified candidates is how they pay their bills. They don't have all day to go over the life stories of candidates and why they didn't want to pursue a 4 year degree. The bottom line is that 4 year degrees show a consistent effort toward acquiring a domain-specific set of knowledge that is favorable to most hiring managers. Is it possible that a non-degreed candidate with no work experience is the best of a pool? Sure. Is it worth a recruiter's time and energy sourcing candidates to put THAT guy in front of a hiring manager if he's only got a few spots available (because he probably isn't the only recruiter in communication with said hiring manager)? IMO, no. As someone who has worked both sides of that aisle (currently a developer), unless a recruit has serious experience, he's not in the final pool of qualified applicants. Let someone else take that risk. I've got to worry about my next paycheck. This is a sales job, after all.

trg2 12y ago

All fair points. I guess my concern is that most recruiters aren't you, and probably aren't anyone commenting on this thread. My bias is that mass-adoption (and ultimately, online learning as an alternative to a ~100k education) will only happen when an entry-level recruiter is able to filter through and use online courses as a hiring signal. So far, the only people I've seen get anywhere close to this, or care at all, are very technical founders hiring for a very small team, usually in the valley. Even if they respect the course or what was learned, they don't actively seek these people out. I've seen startup founders aggressively seeking out and trying to hire Stanford / Harvard / Princeton alumni because they're alumni. Yet I've never heard anyone saying "Let's go recruit and hire CS184 grads". ... yet.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago
Successful recruiters are efficient. By that, I mean they want the shortest route possible from getting a job to fill to filling the job. Filling as many jobs as possible with qualified candidates is how they pay their bills. They don't have all day to go over the life stories of candidates and why they didn't want to pursue a 4 year degree. The bottom line is that 4 year degrees show a consistent effort toward acquiring a domain-specific set of knowledge that is favorable to most hiring managers. Is it possible that a non-degreed candidate with no work experience is the best of a pool? Sure. Is it worth a recruiter's time and energy sourcing candidates to put THAT guy in front of a hiring manager if he's only got a few spots available (because he probably isn't the only recruiter in communication with said hiring manager)? IMO, no. As someone who has worked both sides of that aisle (currently a developer), unless a recruit has serious experience, he's not in the final pool of qualified applicants. Let someone else take that risk. I've got to worry about my next paycheck. This is a sales job, after all.