No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I'm a firm believer that as long as you can show you knowledge and can accomplish the job, the piece of paper is unnecessary. It's also why I think apprentiships should be more of a thing again. Degrees are a very modern thing that while a very useful tool, isn't being used right.
Of course, and any job will expect some degree of training anyway. But there's only so much that can be tested for before hiring someone. A degree is just a reference from the university that you meet their standards of mastery at whatever major at whatever level. Some jobs expect you to have one just like some expect you to have references from individuals, but others will have other tests for qualification which may even just be an interview conversation. Apprenticeships are pretty similar; each is an individual or group staking their reputation on vouching for your competency. Even a GED or high school diploma is a reference, just from an organization or a public institution.
Aye, you aren't wrong, that's my whole point though, in the end, it's just one entity vouching for the other. While school can have some standardization I've met enough people from schools with paper in hand that I would never have thought competent enough to weild that paper. So why is this one entity have so much more sway than others? I'm simply saying all the options should be considered and not hard locked off because that paper doesn't exist.
For instance, I have an older family member who's an OG senior program engineer with a resume that is just astoundingly impressive. No doubt most people who've had a computer would recognize their work. Like, sincerely impressive. They struggled to find a job for 4-5 years because they lacked a programming degree.
I don't disagree with degrees as a method, I disagree with using them as a universal, only way method. I, myself, am not a degree weilding graduate but I did work my way up through sheer knowledge. It was a heck of a struggle that took a long, long time. I feel others should be able to do what I did with lower thresholds to jobs if they know their work. Trial periods, internships, contract work, and job competency testing should be reasonable options when hiring, regardless of what entity backs them.
Yeah I actually work in a dev team where about half of us picked up programming outside of college. That includes our boss, who's also the most technically proficient in my opinion. He went through a Microsoft-certified boot camp instead. Some of my uncles are engineers that had college paid for by their company, since they were already shown to be valuable workers without it.
I get the appeal of being able to just look for a candidate's school instead of doing more heavy-lifting when evaluating a candidate, but the growing over-reliance is to everyone's detriment. Companies will be missing out on some real talent, and qualified applicants have trouble getting the opportunity to prove themselves.
A degree shows that you can complete a long-term multi-phase project involving a large variety of tasks and disciplines while following the rules established by the organization.
So can a resume, or work history
All a work history says for lots of jobs is that you followed dress code and showed up. It doesn't mean you accomplished anything.
And it often says nothing about your ability to perform tasks unsupervised or willingness to delay graticifation. Someone working for 4+ years without payment to prepare for the future appears more forward-looking to lots of employers than the person who went to work straight out of high school.
Is it always fair? No. But all else being equal I'll hire someone with a degree every time, so when I have limited time and 300 resumes with only 25 of them have degrees, guess which 275 I'm gonna instantly eliminate?
Sure, you can absolutely do that. That being said, you can literally buy degrees, you can also scrape by and learn nothing and still wind up with a degree. If an adult cant perform their job unsupervised than they aren't a good candidate regardless.
If someone maintains a job it shows that they can at least do what is required to not get fired which means some kind of work performance is done. You can't just show up with a tie and do nothing, if you can than the business itself has problems. My whole point is only that degrees are way overvalued over other means, and you made my exact point. Discounting hundreds of people who could have more direct knowledge on what you're doing over someone who could have never touched a live process because of a piece of paper.
You're just cheating yourself out of good candidates because you feel the process is too hard, which overall hurts the business.