It’s No Surprise That “Skills-Based” Hiring Has Not Worked
It’s No Surprise That “Skills-Based” Hiring Has Not Worked
A new report shows that, even after businesses announce dropping college degree requirements for jobs, most hire college graduates anyway.
This article outlines an opinion that organizations either tried skills based hiring and reverted to degree required hiring because it was warranted, or they didn't adapt their process in spite of executive vision.
Since this article is non industry specific, what are your observations or opinions of the technology sector? What about the general business sector?
Should first world employees of businesses be required to obtain degrees if they reasonably expect a business related job?
Do college experiences and academic rigor reveal higher achieving employees?
Is undergraduate education a minimum standard for a more enlightened society? Or a way to hold separation between classes of people and status?
Is a masters degree the new way to differentiate yourself where the undergrad degree was before?
Edit: multiple typos, I guess that's proof that I should have done more college 😄
To believe otherwise, you must believe that business leaders and hiring managers don’t know what they’re doing – that they are blindly following tradition or just lazy. [...]you’d need to believe that businesses have simply overlooked a better way to hire. That seems naïve.
IDK, Has the author ever worked anywhere? Talked to anyone who worked somewhere? READ SOME POSTS ON REDDIT ABOUT WORKING SOMEWHERE? The amount of times no one could understand why a business does what it does, seemingly to its own detriment, is staggering.
They are right that it's wrong to believe that people with college degrees don't have skills - some do. The issue is that it appears to practically be non correlated to each other. I've seen people with college degrees who clearly learned very little during that experience. I've seen people with no degree be very knowledgeable and skilled.
The other obvious question in regard to hiring is - if going to college was necessary to do a job, then surely the degree would matter. However, outside of limited situations, the thing they're looking for is a degree, not one related to the job they're hiring for. Also, degrees are stupidly expensive which at least has to drive up wages a little anytime there's some competition in the labor market.
I'd argue the biggest obvious mark against a degree really doing much is that it's relevant at most for the first job. After that, no one asks to see the degree, or cares what your GPA was, or whatever - because the much better skill assessment is actually doing a job in the field. At that point, while it's tradition to require a degree, it's literally a check box. If these companies thought about it better, they'd realize the hiring mostly ignores degrees for any position outside of literally the first one out of college. An obvious solution to this problem IMHO would be the probationary period. Set it for 6 months renewing for some period. You need some time having someone do the actual task to really know if they're going to be a good fit anyway.
Has the author ever worked anywhere?
I wonder if having a degree is a hard requirement for journalism and writing/communication and that's what the author's world perspective is based on?
When coworkers sit around the lunch table and complain/vent about the state of the world, do you imagine that journalist complain about a lack of higher education, so when they see any evidence that threatens the model of college degrees (which = debt), they jump on it as proof of their own path?
while it’s tradition to require a degree, it’s literally a check box
This is a very good challenge to the requirement. If it's just a check box (that you have A degree) and not a very specific one, does it diminish the credibility of the requirement?
Do people like the probationary period idea? It sounds functional and practical to me.
I currently work at a business that uses a similar method to the probationary period, and I hate it. It’s definitely one of those things that sounds good on paper, but in practice I would love to move away from.
We use a proprietary system in my field, and train a couple of members of each department to be able to submit stuff into it (think Concur / NetSuite). It takes about three months to become proficient enough that I don’t have some form of issue with everything you submit. This means I can spend months training someone, just for them to be let go and the next person roll in.
Training people is expensive in both cash for the business and the time of those around them. Hiring correctly once would make my life a lot easier.
I've never seen a hiring manager that knew shit about anything besides trying to haggle wages down. Are they living in some kind of parallel universe?
They also know how to sack people and talk people into not reporting something like health and safety violations.
One place I worked at used ozone in an enclosed space for cleaning. No masks or ventilation. Some new guy was like "in the last place I worked we had a shit load of procedures for that because it was so dangerous"
They stopped using ozone then and no one got anything out of it.
I spent the last 4 years working on this at a state-wide level at my last job, so I’ve seen a lot in this space. Skills based hiring is extremely effective when done right. The problem is that most employers don’t know how. They take the degree requirement off the listing and then go through the same interview processes as if nothing changed. In tech specifically, there is a huge highly skilled talent pool whose potential is going untapped because of a glass ceiling keeping them from senior positions. If employers were effective at identifying what applicants, and even existing employees, are capable of they’d have a much easier time filling roles and the ‘talent gap’ wouldn’t be nearly as severe as it is.
I've been in management for about 15 years and have hired many people. My take-away is that standard HR interview practices ("Tell me about a time when you had a conflict with a coworker...") are basically a popularity contest that strongly favors extroverts and people with good story-telling and language skills. I suppose these techniques are good if that's primarily what you are looking for. However, if you are hiring for actual technical skills, these interview techniques are worse than useless, they are discriminatory.
Also, HR people, in my experience, are quite under-educated when it comes to interview techniques. I've worked with about dozen different HR people over the years and none of them had any kind of imagination or technical expertise when it came to interviewing. In my organization and in other similar organizations where I have peers, any deviation from the standard HR interview is entirely driven by managers who are sick of the usual HR crap.
Most of HR processes are pure ideological bullshit. "Personality tests" that are nothing else but "we search for obedient drones and here is our tarot to help" and "intelligence tests" that are based on some racial science bullshit made to prove the inferiority of Jews that might be useful only if you work in a factory of math patterns.
They are not there to ensure efficient production, after all they don't know shit about the product or internal processes of the teams. They're a caste of priests whose role is ensuring compliance with the feudal-corporate system.
Started working for my current company as tech support. No degree, in a homeless shelter, just good with tech and helping people. It bothered me not understanding how things I supported worked, so I started to teach myself to code and offer ideas for potential fixes when submitting tickets. Ended up being approached and hired by the head of development who allowed me to continue learning on my own. I've been with them for 12 years now, and in the first few years hobbled together the product/feature which became their flagship. Find people who are eager and excited to learn and they'll thrive.
Find people who are eager and excited to learn and they’ll thrive
Yours is an awesome story, thanks.
In my mind, if a company wants to set a generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans. Otherwise it's using the education system as a subsidized training program.
Note I said generalized. Engineers, doctors, etc who desire to ever be employed can't stop at a bachelor's anyways. Even still, their employees should have to pick up their training tab.
Business has gotten a free pass for 40 years and look at the society they've created with it. Maybe civilization needs more than a love of money to sustain it. Crazy huh.
This would make getting a job out of college SO MUCH HARDER. Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce, for whom someone else has already paid off their loan.
Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans. I suppose this could work similar to vesting, so it wouldn’t be impossible. But companies would still try very hard not to hire anyone with student loans. It would just benefit the wealthy people who don’t need them.
Much easier to just raise business taxes by enough to pay for free education at all levels.
Tax based upon the average education level required for the job in the industry. This would change them all to a skills based hiring system overnight.
Companies would do everything the could to get existing employees in the workforce
I'm not disagreeing with you. I would submit that this is already true for other reasons. Speaking specifically of IT or INFOSEC fields, companies currently have extremely high expectations or experience requirements/desires.
This has been a problem for the INFOSEC field where there's a shortage, but companies don't want to hire entry level candidates with little to no experience. They want reasoned, veteran INFOSEC practitioners, which there isn't enough of.
generalized education requirement, above high school, that company should be required to pay off its employees student loans
Much like cell phone carriers locking you into a contract, companies would try to force you to work for them for X number of years because they paid your loans
I like that you both brought this up. There's a real life example of this in the US military. It's a well known benefit/incentive for military service that they would fund your college education if you work for them long enough. You signed your service contract, but if you met that, you got your education for 'free' if you want to call it that. It's a little different in you might be killed in a stupid political war along the way, but it shows that the idea is practical and can work.
I guess if I had the choice of being hired at a really decent company and they would fund some highly sought after training as long as I gave them a reasonable number or years of employment with reasonable compensation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
On the other had, the SyFi fan that I am, I could see a bit of a dystopian future where you have to belong to companies for a while to start off in life. If you consider that people now start off in massive student loan dept, the dystopian ownership is currently banks while people take up to 20+ years to repay student loans.
Engineers in the US regularly stop at the bachelor's level.
Yup, in the office we regularly hire engineers and scientists with a bachelor's, I've never seen anyone even care what tier of bachelor's. Some people go on to get licensed or a master's on the company dime but we also have lots of unlicensed never going back to school people in very technical demanding and high ranking positions.
I'm just a geologist with a bachelor's and am regularly supervising and training people with engineering PhDs. My work place quickly becomes task specific and degrees are worth less than years in the field a lot of the time, your mileage may vary.
Or, you know, get some state-funded free college education like most other civilized countries other than the US, so you actually do not end up with $100k student loans like a dumbass.
I'm with ya man, if cost weren't a deterrent I'd hold multiple doctorates right now.
I think that just makes new grads (with loans) unemployable
Just because I got A++ in college doesn't mean I wanna go the extra mile for your stupid ass company or believe my coworkers are a second family, you corporate wastes of space. I'll do the bare minimum as long as I get paid enough to enjoy life and have a family. College was fun, working is not.
It seems like businesses have forgotten quality of life in the workplace. I remember my grandfather working for a company that invested in nice furniture, art, painted walls, and even a daycare to make their employees lives better. People tended to stay there a very long time.
Every company I’ve worked for has been a grey hellhole with cubes as far as the eye can see and anti-decoration policies for your individual space. It’s a little better now with WFH, but the office remains a grim cave that nobody wants to visit.
Maybe if they used a little more carrot and a little less stick, they’d get better results.
As much as I hate the higher education requirement, if I get another “boot camp” developer application I’m gonna puke.
Can you talk about this more?
- Does it mean that a boot camp coder is not skilled enough?
- Would that have those skills if they did a degree program?
- Would any degree in computer/IT suffice?
There are people who went to Boot Camps that are excellent developers. There are people who have a masters degree in computer science who are awful developers.
skilled enough.
For entry level? Honestly, not usually. They know one thing, and if they deviate from that, their quality breaks down fast.
degree program.
Well, there’s no guarantee right? But they’d have a more well rounded understanding of programming. Anyone can use a Class, but can you make one?
degrees
Any programming degree, along with an acceptable understanding of the technologies they need on day one.
For my job specifically, we need someone with PHP experience. Not just how to . My favorite interview question is, “explain to me your understanding of PHP magic methods and how you would use them, in a basic example.”
I get a lot of dumb looks, and wrong answers.
That being said, I hired someone who failed that test, but they had a good personality and a willingness to learn—and they have a CS degree.
For a lot of jobs that want bachelors degrees, people with lots of experience will do. But for jobs requiring masters and doctorates its a different story.
I work in IT. I majored I'm French and Linguistics. Yeah that degree is coming in way more handy than my experience lol
How do you write this article and not once reference I/O Psychology or the literature that examines how well various tests predict job performance? (e.g. Schmidt and Hunter, 1998)
I swear this isn't witchcraft. You just analyze the job, determine the knowledge and skills that are important, required at entry, and can't be obtained in a 15 minute orientation, and then hire based on those things. It takes a few hours worth of meetings. I've done it dozens of times.
But really what all that boils down to is get someone knowledgeable about the role and have them write any questions and design the exercises. Don't let some dingleberry MBA ask people how to move Mt. Fuji or whatever dumb trendy thing they're teaching in business school these days.
I can't count the number of times I've interviewed with a contractor/headhunter and a few minutes in stop them to say "I'm not what you're looking for, here, let me help you re-work those requirements so you'll get the right people to interview".
HR provides those requirements, which just shows how bad HR usually is.
I read about a study years ago showing that hiring via interviews was no better than pulling cards out of a hat.
Schmidt and Hunter, 1998
That's a 74 page article, do you care to summarize it or provide a specific area?
Thanks for a reference. Interesting.
The cool thing about it is that the core of it is really just one page.
There's a page in there with a list of types of tests and their respective r values, which is a number between zero and one that explains how well a given type of test predicts job performance based on this gigantic meta analysis the researchers ran. Zero means there's no relationship between the test and job performance and one means the test predicts job performance perfectly.
Generally you want something better than .3 for high stakes things like jobs. Education and experience sits at ... .11 or so. It's pretty bad. By contrast, skills tests do really well. Depending on the type they can go over .4. That's a pretty big benefit if you're hiring lots of people.
That said it can be very hard to convince people that "just having a conversation with someone" isn't all that predictive at scale. Industry calls that an "unstructured interview" and they're terrible vectors for unconscious or conscious bias. "Hey, you went to the same school as me..." and now that person is viewed favorably.
Seriously this stuff is WELL STUDIED but for some reason the MBA lizards never care. It's maddening.
I'm a bootcamp grad and I have absolutely no business working in this field.
The very fact that you recognize this in yourself puts you head and shoulders above a good 70% of candidates.
Why?
From my exp in tech has been getting to know people on projects and getting known is been 100% the way to go.
What is someone good at and how they work with a team is best seen by working with someone. Getting started though just means taking the shit work and being willing to learn more your own.
This is a TERRIBLY written article.
I could see it working for some roles, but I am an engineer and the degree is both required by my company and necessary to actually do the work.
That said, 80% of my job is not degree-specific and could be done by anyone who pays attention and asks questions, but the 20% is the kicker. Maybe I could do the job of five engineers and replace the other 4 with experienced technicians to cover the 80%s.
Yeah but also that 20% and the 80% feed each other.
It is interesting to think about if that's more economic, and maintains the same quality of work overall.
Code has been skills-based for as long as I’ve been working. The few places I’ve seen that really have a hard degree requirement are not places I’d work. Most CS degrees are also mostly worthless for most app jobs because the theory is not the practice. There are degree programs that focus on shipping applications. In my own hiring, I’m looking for experience over degree and potential over buzzword bingo.
I’m looking for experience over degree
In most cases, it's assumed you'd hire an experienced dev over one who has never held a job, and by that, I mean they have no proof of skill, if you consider a previous employment any proof of actual skill other than convicting someone to hire them :)
Assume you're hiring a new to workforce person. No previous employment:
- Do you hire a degree or no degree candidate with no previous employment record?
- What do you look for specifically if you are looking for skills?
- If your child/family member was going to pursue a career in dev/IT/whatever, would you push them to get a degree, or just build a portfolio of code/projects/whatever shows their skills in that field?
For junior IT roles, you’re screening for passion more than anything else. The best candidates are usually people that play with computers and are looking for growth. There’s a mix of “I have been taking computers apart since I was a kid” and “I’m getting an associates in IT.” Totally hit or miss. Sometimes the person with nothing pans out and the degree seeker won’t. Sometimes it’s the other way around. The deciding factor here is how the candidate meshes with the team.
For junior dev roles, someone with a college degree is usually looking for more than a junior salary but has nothing I would hire at higher levels. Someone without a degree might have been coding in their spare time or done a boot camp. A good portfolio might give you a leg up. I consider a portfolio to be evidence of growth, not a bunch of perfect code. I love seeing GitHub profiles that show really shitty code that matures into really solid code (or at least the signs someone is trying). That being said, what matters is the tech screen and a quick code test. If you can do what I validate in an interview and the team likes you, rad.
For someone with no experience, I tell them to figure out something they want to learn and put it on GitHub. Then repeat a fuck ton. Always expand the things you challenge yourself with and move on when your learning or passion has ceased. Sometimes that means you build yet another todo list. Other times that means you try to figure out how to build that cool Discord bot and fail utterly but learn a bunch of shit along the way.
Honestly at the end of the day it’s all fucking luck. If you get a hiring manager like me that’s slightly biased toward self-trained over degree, you have an easier chance on skills stuff. But that’s a crapshoot. I was lucky when I started and people took chances on me. In return I take chances on people I think could have great potential. That’s just dumb luck both from me and for the people I’m able to help grow.
I'm a developer working for a SaaS company and you didn't NEED a degree to get hired but it sure was a "nice to have."
Did your degree help you with:
- your technical job/duties?
- general business?
- general literacy and soft skills (writing/commination/problem solving)?
Ive heard from quite a few developers that people without degrees in CS program differently than with a degree. CS teaches the theoretical fundamentals that you could go your entire life without knowing and still perform well in a job, but they do help when e.g. building novel solutions, reframing problems into more general problems that were solved 40 years ago, and getting an overview of how everything works can prevent reinventing the wheel.
- Kind of, I work mainly in PHP, Python & JS the only one of those that I was exposed to in school was PHP. I learnt the other two on my own after graduating. I did also get a little exposure to git in school but I learnt more about it in a month or so of being hired then I did in school. I also got a lot of, how to do documentation, how to analyse requirements, etc.
- what does this mean?
- 1000% yes.
Nepotism/cronyism will get you a lot further than a silly piece of paper.
IMO the most important thing about college is the people you meet. Build a large network of individuals who know you, and know where you want to be, and one of them might just get your foot in the door.
Skill-based hiring is more complex than “traditional” experience/education based hiring but it can work really well for orgs. that really invest in this method of hiring.
And by investing I mean they train and empower their recruiters to spot and assess the skills the business is looking for.
Many businesses talk the talk but don’t set themselves up skills-based hiring.
Having a degree means you are docile, obedient and perseverant especially in the face of bullshit, welcome aboard.
Lmao, perseverant yes. The rest of that sentence sounds like sadness & jealousy masquerading as projection. Or is my challenging you too docile?