Posted on 01/06/2023 1:17:29 AM PST by libh8er
For decades now, companies have measured candidates largely by their degrees, years of experience, and other pedigree signals as filters to determine who to hire and promote.
However, the cracks in this model are becoming more apparent by the day: 61% of the U.S. business leaders LinkedIn recently surveyed say it’s challenging to attract top talent right now–and studies suggest that traditional signals such as specific years of experience are flawed predictors of someone’s ability to do a job well.
For companies who say it’s a tough environment to find the right talent, the math behind this approach shows why: Over 70% of jobs require degrees–but less than 50% of the U.S. workforce hold a bachelor’s degree. The talent pools shrink even further when employers screen candidates to recruit from a small pool of elite universities and top companies.
Against this backdrop, there’s a massive shift underway that’s steadily moving the labor market from a pedigree-based model to a skills-first model. Employers on LinkedIn are already making this shift, with roughly one in four job postings (24%) in the U.S. no longer requiring degrees, up from 15% in 2020. HR teams are also increasingly relying on skills as the key filter through which to evaluate a candidate’s ability and potential on LinkedIn, with over 40% now explicitly using skills data to fill their roles.
That sustained momentum suggests it’s no longer a question of if or when–but really a matter of how we collectively take the next steps now to make a skills-first approach a shared reality across all corners of the labor market.
From remote and hybrid working to “quiet quitting” and the “Great Reshuffle”, the pandemic era has ushered in a new wave of workplace conversations that rapidly became new workplace norms. Many of those conversations take place
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
That makes certification the way of the future as far as education goes.
Diversity (non-white) is the number one skill they’re looking for evidently.
It’s always been skills over pedigree. I never even got a bachelors, the word-of-mouth network kept me employed for 30 years in engineering and management positions. Had a couple of degreed co-workers who resented it, but so it goes.
(It ain’t bragging if you can do it.)
I use IQ test.
Colleges and universities have worn-out their usefulness. And then they committed suicide by replacing what little education they did impart with indoctrination.
So corporations will place greater demands on their talented, non-diverse hires.
Companies with over 25 employees would probably be sued if used that as a criterion.
Change won’t happen overnight. Paradigm shifts never do.
That statement is only true when circumstances permit a slow paradigm shift. Change actually happens at the speed of need.
For example, during WWII, changes in skills and jobs occurred immediately because people and institutions either changed or battles were lost and people died.
The catalyst for change at the present time is the speed of technological development. Companies and employees (and hiring practices) change to keep up with technological, engineering, and analytical systems development or their competition wins.
You just call it a psychometric evaluation and then you ignore the results of the non-IQ questions that it contains. This is how big companies get around it.
Probably not a very smart way of hiring (oh, the irony).
Intelligence is so much more than a single number.
Someone of a lower relative IQ might be much better mechanically, logically, and at identifying creative solutions to mundane problems than a person with a higher IQ who displays flashes of brilliance re: higher level, pure mathematics, but cannot deal with mundane issues and may even become depressed with boring problems.
Conclusion: IQ may not be the best test of who can get a job done.
It is the best measure if the job requires extremely high intelligence. Only about one percent of jobs fall into this category.
One guy was absolutely brilliant. I don't know what his IQ was, but he was thought by everyone to be a genius (and was rumored to have an IQ to match). He was incredibly good at digging down into the most arcane issues and finding solutions to problems and identifying potential problems that might arise if certain actions were taken.
The other guy was just a good solid lawyer. Very smart, but not brilliant...just solid. He was very good in his understanding of the law, but was excellent when it came to the practical application of the law to the real life issues we were facing. I'm sure his IQ was quite high in that he was from a top school and had made partner at a young age at a top firm...but his gift was that he was balanced, measured, and mature. His gifts did not require nor would they have been expressed by a high IQ.
This is what I am referring to when I say that IQ alone isn't a good predictor of success (at least at the professional level of performance that I needed).
“(It ain’t bragging if you can do it.)”
I like to call it, “being smarter than the average bear!” Thanks Yogi!
So true.
I have known many people with high IQs. I even married one. Their IQ scores bought them spots in gifted classes and schools. Yet, overall, they were no more successful in their careers and their lives than other people. One was a member of Mensa, and in addition to her reported intelligence, she was very pretty. But, if she had never told me about her IQ, I would have never guessed. Her personal life was a mess, and her work performance was unimpressive. The only benefit her IQ bought her was some bragging rights.
Maybe an employer should consider an IQ score as one factor for certain types of work, but an employee's skills and work ethic are far more important in most jobs.
I think you are referring to EQ then. People with a high emotional intelligence are highly valuable in the work place. Under the worst conditions they capture any one of their emotions and subdue it with an appropriate response. The higher the person's EQ the more they come across as being able to handle anything in the workplace.
Quality degrees from real STEM colleges WERE certifications at some level. Might still be.
The problem is there are a lot of junk ______ Studies degrees muddying the waters.
I guess that today’s hiring is realizing that 10 years of experience is very different from one year of experience repeated 10 times. Of course every ‘woke’ HR department works to negate this very important difference. To them experience of a candidate is way down the list of requirements.
As it should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.