this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
214 points (90.5% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
3123 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
214
It’s No Surprise That “Skills-Based” Hiring Has Not Worked (www.forbes.com)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 😄

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

A problen in any mericratic system is accounting for personal bias. Its very hard for some people to see someone do something different and assume they are as good or better then themselves.

THEY went to college or THEY didn't and all of the personal reasons they assumed when making that decision get reapplied to others.

THEY didn't get where they are by being hired off of well studied hiring mechanism so why would think it needs changed, the old system works for them.

Same issue with election reforms.