College Experience

[Guest]

Falls into the "all things being equal" category.

So, rephrasing, three candidates with the same expertise, I would (and normally do) hire based on:

* Experience
* Outside experiences/successes
* Paper only

Nobody I know looks at it differently. I need to build a team, so need candidates who know how to work together. Bookworms don't usually fare well.

I think this post is the epitome of today's thinking, that college is all about "the college experience" and not about academic/intellectual excellence. Europe has it right, where the majority of people don't go to college because they don't really need it, and the people who do go to college are the ones who go to build foundational expertise in the area of study they intend to pursue as a career.

For some circumstances, you are correct. If I was building a team for a pharmaceutical sales team, I would want well-rounded, social people who can talk the talk and be persuasive. But if I wanted to build a team to develop the vaccines for the next pandemic, I would want bookworms who knew their science and scientific methods.

[Guest]

What if the bookworm has the best experience for what the team needs? Particularly in a number of STEM fields, the bookworm is the one with the strongest expertise, so the circumstance you are describing here ("all things being equal") if a flawed premise. There is a reason why MD's and most STEM pHD's go thru 8-9 years of academic training; they need it in order to develop the expertise to be effective in their field of study and chosen professions.

If the bookworm had the best experience, wouldn't that mean they would be first choice...as was stated?


[QUOTE=Guest;n4572778]



Are you the same idiot over on the Rutgers thread? Christ, I hope there aren't two of you up in here.....

[Guest]

If the bookworm had the best experience, wouldn't that mean they would be first choice...as was stated?

Sorry, auto-correct altered my post. Meant to ask "what if the bookworm had the best expertise?"

[Guest]

Sorry, auto-correct altered my post. Meant to ask "what if the bookworm had the best expertise?"

I'd take the person who's done it vs. who has read a lot about how to do it....100% of the time. Now, if a person had more expertise but can't work in a team, I'd probably still take the team-player as they know how to rely on other's expertise for problem-solving.

[Guest]

I'd take the person who's done it vs. who has read a lot about how to do it....100% of the time. Now, if a person had more expertise but can't work in a team, I'd probably still take the team-player as they know how to rely on other's expertise for problem-solving.

Of course you would hire someone with work experience vs. someone coming straight out of college. But that's a flawed premise as it's extremely rare that you would be considering an experienced person vs. a new college grad for the same position (and I would argue that if you were in this situation, your budget would play a bigger role than anything as the experienced hire would be significantly more expensive).

As far as your premise of "a person had more expertise but can't work in a team", you are interjecting caveats and conditions instead of "all things being equal". And the assumption that a "bookworm" can't work in a team seems extreme and misguided. Team dynamics are not static, and it's entirely possible that a bookworm could be a perfect fit in the right mixture of people. You are trying to paint this all with such broad brushstrokes using stereotypes of different types of people.

[Guest]

Of course you would hire someone with work experience vs. someone coming straight out of college. But that's a flawed premise as it's extremely rare that you would be considering an experienced person vs. a new college grad for the same position (and I would argue that if you were in this situation, your budget would play a bigger role than anything as the experienced hire would be significantly more expensive).

As far as your premise of "a person had more expertise but can't work in a team", you are interjecting caveats and conditions instead of "all things being equal". And the assumption that a "bookworm" can't work in a team seems extreme and misguided. Team dynamics are not static, and it's entirely possible that a bookworm could be a perfect fit in the right mixture of people. You are trying to paint this all with such broad brushstrokes using stereotypes of different types of people.

I only mentioned in my original post where I rank what I have hired, and will hired. Of course, nothing will always be equal. But, we have posts alluding to a successful college athlete not being good, dedicated students. So, if we are going to paint one color with a broad brush, we should be able do do it for all.

[Guest]

I only mentioned in my original post where I rank what I have hired, and will hired. Of course, nothing will always be equal. But, we have posts alluding to a successful college athlete not being good, dedicated students. So, if we are going to paint one color with a broad brush, we should be able do do it for all.

I haven't seen any posts that alluded to or implied that successful college athletes are not generally good, dedicated students (ok, maybe I've seen it about D2 athletics). I think just about everyone who has kids who aspire to play college sports believes that being a student athlete requires the development of time-management skills, work ethic and discipline, which is why most of us encourage our kids to do this.

What HAS been said here is that the time demands of being a D1 athlete requires that those students make athletics their top priority in college instead of academics, and that for the majority of kids who will not be going pro, there are some who question how worthwhile it is to prioritize things this way, particularly if the player is not seeing the field much ore are playing on a losing team. But in almost no instances have I seen or advocated for painting student-athletes who make that prioritization as "bad, undedicated students".

[Guest]

...continuing my point in the above^^^ post:

Being a "bookworm" is also not a bad thing (or at least not always). Having a hunger for knowledge and to learn is a good thing (just as having great time management and discipline as a student athlete is). Someone who at a young age decides to work on academics with the same vigor and enthusiasm as our sons/daughters do to become great soccer players who are talented and disciplined enough to play in college at any level should be applauded, not degraded as "not being able to work in a team". Deriding a "bookworm" for their hunger to learn is just as bad as deriding a soccer player who prioritizes soccer over academics in college. The only difference between the bookworm and the student athlete is that the bookworm's "highlight reel" (ie. their transcript) is not as exciting for most people to look at.

We should applaud kids for striving to be the best at whatever they choose to pursue.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;n4572784]

If the bookworm had the best experience, wouldn't that mean they would be first choice...as was stated?

Are you the same idiot over on the Rutgers thread? Christ, I hope there aren't two of you up in here.....

Are you the same Daddy from PA whose daughter like to sit the bench?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;n4572809]

If the bookworm had the best experience, wouldn't that mean they would be first choice...as was stated?




Are you the same Daddy from PA whose daughter like to sit the bench?

Definitely the same idiot. No doubt.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;n4572813]

Definitely the same idiot. No doubt.

should view this as a good thing as the rest of us dont want to be put in that category

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;n4572809]

If the bookworm had the best experience, wouldn't that mean they would be first choice...as was stated?




Are you the same Daddy from PA whose daughter like to sit the bench?

Still can't find a post that says anyone likes to sit on the bench, can ya'?

As above, glad there appears to only be one idiot on here stirring things up and it's not common with the rest.

[Guest]

Of course you would hire someone with work experience vs. someone coming straight out of college. But that's a flawed premise as it's extremely rare that you would be considering an experienced person vs. a new college grad for the same position (and I would argue that if you were in this situation, your budget would play a bigger role than anything as the experienced hire would be significantly more expensive).

As far as your premise of "a person had more expertise but can't work in a team", you are interjecting caveats and conditions instead of "all things being equal". And the assumption that a "bookworm" can't work in a team seems extreme and misguided. Team dynamics are not static, and it's entirely possible that a bookworm could be a perfect fit in the right mixture of people. You are trying to paint this all with such broad brushstrokes using stereotypes of different types of people.

Add.to it
-not all jobs require a great degree of teamwork but require expertise
-not all athletes are good team members
- D1 athletes get tremendous academic support so can they really stand on their own?
-someone assumed the comparison was athlete vs bookworm, but what about all the students in-between who work hard but are involved in loads of activities and run campus organizations, work a lot of hours to help pay for school? Those are the candidates I want to talk to most


In other words like you said there's no one size fits all