Education & Work Refreshing to finally see - more and more top tier corps will start to take on this approach!

Read this yesterday. It's great to see a major corp adopting this approach and not using degree qualification/grade be a determining factor for someone to get their foot in the door. Well done EY for being one of the first major corps to do this!

Ernst & Young Removes Degree Classification From Entry Criteria As There's 'No Evidence' University Equals Success

 

Its common sense really. A degree doesn't make you any smarter than the next person.

 

Although a degree is not the determinant factor in career success, almost every professional organisation requires that a degree and post graduate qualification are required to become a full member eg: Institute of Chartered Accountants requires a degree then a 2 year post-grad (Masters Equivalent qualification) and specific work experience to become a chartered accountant - sure you can hold a cert II in bookkeeping but you won't make partner. Valuers, engineers, solicitors, surveyors etc are all required to hold degrees though lesser qualifications are often accepted for associate members (who are not qualified to undertake certain tasks).

This can be seen as a ploy to employ cheaper, unqualified grunts and devaluing the (self)-importance and standards of the professions.

 

Sounds like they are still going to look at academic qualifications but just later in the selection process.

I think its a smart policy to find the candidates who have the most potential not the just the ones who have been the most advantaged.

 

I think uni courses are largely a waste of time, but are unfortunately needed because of licencing.

 

Interesting comment @Terry_w

 

I wholeheartedly agree @Terry_w

 

As an example I studied Japanese language during my first degree. 3 years yet the majority of my class mates could not make conversation at the end of the course or read a book in Japanese - including children's books. Largely a complete waste of time for these people.

In my law degree we did one semester on Trusts. Yet there was absolutely no practical aspects. You would not even had know that a trustee could own property. Majority of lawyers would have no practical understanding of trusts and the ones that do would know because of experience.

Same with the study of succession - I think we looked at just one example will in this course.

Its like studying swimming by learning about the chemistry of water, the anatomy of the body - everything but getting wet.

 

DT: related.



Have fun working at Starbucks for the rest of your life.

 

Even as someone who worked extremely hard for his degree, I definitely don't look down at anyone who hasn't got one. This is a smart, smart move. There are plenty of very talented people that for whatever reason took different paths and learned just as much as I did through real life experience. Much respect to this company.

 

A few years ago on SS, I suggested that the overwhelming majority of Uni degrees be disbanded and replaced with apprenticeships.

Except for certain careers where training is required prior to entering the field (eg: surgeon).

At the time, a handful of people thought it was a good idea, most people thought it was stupid.

 

I use very little of my formal university education in my everyday job - while it has on occasion come in handy, there is a wide chasm between theory and practice I learnt quickly in my early career, and I see in graduates working for me.
When recruiting now, especially in the developing markets I work in, I take commitment and enthusiasm over competence or capability, both of which can be learnt.
A degree does however demonstrate a commitment / drive / perseverance towards a field or career...

 

At least she got a certificate and a ceremony for her time spent studying gender. Youve probably spent way more time than her researching feminists. What did it get you?

 

What do you mean by apprenticeship? On the job training?

 

I could have done two of my degrees with 90% less study than I did. Unfortunately for my sanity, that's not how I do things. So, I agree. But there needed to be a tangible measure of time spent with sheer learning or study. It just wasn't examined heavily enough for my liking (to justify my effort at least).

 

Higher education taught me more than purely the content of the course. Regardless of how useful the content was/is. I also learnt about:

Time management
Discipline
Focus
Responsibility
Multi tasking
Networking-Relationship Development
Open mindedness
Critical thinking


These have helped me grow and be more efficient both in the work place as an productive worker and also in everyday life as a regular person.

 

I think you still need some academic type learning, but not just sitting there for 3 or 4 years reading books before doing something practical. I think the medicine courses these days are getting more practical as they have the students seeing patients from year 1. But the law courses are not practical at all. You don't even see the inside of a court, not even in the practical component - they had a mock court.

 

Didn't you go to court during your degree Terry? I sub-majored in Commercial Law and they made us follow a case including being present in court. I would have thought an actual law degree would incident at least one visit inside a court room? Even a local court?

 

We actually did a moot in the Supreme Court on a saturday while it was closed, but nope, there was no going and seeing a live case or a visit. I think we may have been encouraged to visit and have a look on our own time perhaps.